V 


m^iL 


-^.z.w 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    by     A.  G^.  Cc^•vr^e-ror\;  PWju. 

BV  811  .HA62 

Hendrick,  John  Thilman,  b. 

1811. 
Letters  on  the  subjects  and 
mode  of  baptism 


LETT 


ON 


The  Subjects  and  mode  ^r  Baptism: 


IN  TWO  PARTS. 


BY  J.  T.  HENDRICK, 


JPastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  Millershurgh  and  Carlisle^   K^, 


MILLERSBURGH; 


1842. 


PKEFACE, 


The  following  Letters  contain  the  substance  of  a 
'-:ourse  of  Lectures  delivered  by  the  author  to  his  own 
congregations.  Most  of  them  have  appeared,  also,  in 
the  "Protestant  &  Herald,"'  in  a  series  signed  "H." — 
They  appear  in  their  present  form  at  the  earnest  and 
repeated  requests  of  many  of  the  original  hearers  and 
readers. 

The  design  of  the  writer  was  to  be  simple,  plain, 
and  pointed,  so  as  to  adapt  the  work  to  the  wants  o^ 
the  people ,  v/ho  are  not  so  much  disposed  to  criticisi: 
and  find  fault  with  the  style,  as  to  know  the  real  facts 
of  the  case.  He  has  prefered,  in  all  cases,  to  give  the 
language  of  others,  when  it  could  be  done  to  advan- 
tage, rather  than  state  the  facts  in  his  own  v/ords.  All 
the  works  on  the  subjects  discussed  that  arei  kncrwn  to 
the  author  have  been  fully  and  carefully  examined  on 
both  sides.  He  has  left  out  no  fact,  which  he  is 
aware  of,  that  had  an  important  bearing  on  either  side. 

To  the  following  authors  the  writer  is  particularly 
indebted:  Dr.  Wall,  Dr.  Campbell,  Prof.  Pond,  Dr. 
Miller,  Peter  Edwards,  Drs.  Dwight  and  Rice,  on  the 
one  side;  and  Drs.  Gale,  Carson,  Cox,  Robinson  ond 
"Stuart,  with  Boothe  and  A.Campbell,  on  the  other* 
He  has  had,  however,  to  consult  many  other  author^. 
as  will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  Letters. 


e 

To  those  with  whom  he  may  differ  he  would  say,  that 
whatever  they  may  think  of  his  arguments  and  style, 
he  hopes  they  will  concede  to  him  honesty  and  candor, 
and  find  neither  unkindness  in  language  nor  the  spirit 
of  denunciation  in  these  pages.  He  asks  all  to  read 
the  work  through  carefully  before  they  pass  sentence 
on  it. 

THE  AUTHOR, 

MlLLERSBURGH,  Mai/  1842. 


PART  FIRST. 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTIS9f 


LETTER  I. 

THE    QUESTION    STATED COMMISSION—- JEWISH 

HOUSEHOLD    BAPTISM, 

Although  the  subject  of  Baptism  has  been  so  re- 
peatedly discussed,  it  is  still  far  from  being  finally 
settled.  Much  of  the  difficulty  arises  from  not  dis- 
tinctly Stating  the  real  points  of  difference.  The  only 
two  points  of  importance  are  these,  viz:  The  subject, 
and  7node  of  the  ordinance. 

1.  Is  Infant  Baptism  a  human  tradition?  The  advo- 
cates of  immersion  say  it  is,  we  say  it  is  not;  so  here 
is  a  fair,  plain  point  of  issue:  they  take  the  affirma- 
tive, and  the  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  them;  but  we 
take  the  negative  and  so  stand  on  the  defensive. 

2.  Is  immersion  essential  to  Christian  Baptism?  They 
take  the  affirmative  again,  and  we  the  negative;  so 
here  is  a  second  point  on  which  we  join  issue.  The 
question,  whether  believers  are  proper  subjects  for 
baptism,  is  not  in  the  contest;  for  we  believe  as  firmly 
in  the  baptism  of  all  penitent  believers  as  they  can. 
So  there  is  no  issue  here;  yet  nothing  is  more  com- 
mon, than  for  the  immersionist  to  spend  his  time  to 
prove  that  believers  are  fit  subjects  for  baptism.  Bur 
does  tliat  prove  infants  are  not  fit  subjects?  Not  at 
all.  If  you  prove  a  man  is  ratioiia I ^  does  it  follow  that 
an  iiifaiif  is  not  rational?     The  simple,  and  the  whole 


'8 

question  is  about  itvfants;  for  we  agree  as  to  adults, — 
Then  why  will  you  apply  what  the  Bible  says  of  adults 
to  the  case  of  infants? 

The  commission  of  Christ  contains  our  authority  for 
baptism.  We  believe  it  includes  infants — our  oppo- 
nents believe  it  does  not;  we  are  both  honest~my 
opinion  is  worth  no  more  than  his,  but  truth  lies  some- 
where, and  how  shall  we  decide  the  difficulty?  Why, 
let  us  gain  all  the  information  we  can  as  to  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  Christ  said,  "Go,  disciple, 
proselyte,  all  nations,  baptizing  them.."  Was  it  custo- 
mary then  to  baptizo  Jewish  children?  Did  those  holy 
men,  called  Apostolic  Fathers,  understand  Christ  to 
include  infants?  Do  the  Apostles, in  the  book  of  Acts 
and  the  Epistles,  so  practice?  We  say  they  do:  and 
this  fully  confirms  our  view  of  the  commission. 

The  commission  reads  thus,  Matt.  28:  19.  "Go. 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name,  &c." 
The  word  teach  here,  as  all  will  admit,  literally  means 
^'proselyfe,'^  "make  disciples,''^  "christianize^^^  as  we  shall 
find  all  the  Fathers  using  in  due  time. 

Suppose  we  substitute  the  word  'circumcising'  them, 
lor  'baptizing'  them  in  this  commission;  would  not  all 
understand  by  it  that  infants  were  to  be  circumcised? 
Certainly.  And  why?  Because  it  was  then  customary 
to  circumcise  all  Jewish  infants.  Suppose  the  Presby- 
terian church  should  say  to  their  missionaries  to  India: 
^Go,  disciple,  teach,  proselyte  that  nation;'  would  not 
these  men  understand  that  they  were  to  baptize  chil- 
dren? Certainly.  Why?  Because  that  is  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Presbyterian  church.  Then,  suppose  the 
Baptist  church  should  say  to  their  missionaries  to  Chi- 


na: — ^'Go,  disciple,  christianize  that  nation;'  would 
they  not  understand,  that  they  were  not  to  baptize 
infants,  without  being  told  positively,  'Thou  shalt  bap- 
tize no  children?'  Certainly  they  would.  But  why 
so?  Simply,  because  it  is  not  the  custom  of  the  Bap- 
tists to  baptize  infants.  Suppose  the  Governor  should 
proclaim  thus: — 'Let  every  one,  on  the  Lord's  day, 
attend  church.'  Would  not  the  man  be  simple,  in- 
deed, who  20  years  hence  would  conclude,  that  there 
w^ere  no  sermons,  prayers,  or  hymns  used  at  church  on 
Sabbath,  simply  beca.use  no  mention  was  made  of  such 
things  in  the  Goveniour's  proclamation? — For,  such 
things  are  so  common  in  the  church,  that  the  Governor 
must  most  positively  and  explicitly  forbid  them,  unless 
he  intended  their  use.  Just  so  stood  the  case  of  bap- 
tism, when  Christ  gave  his  last  commission: — 'Go, 
christianize,  disciple,  proselyte  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,'  as  the  original  word  (matheteusate)  and  the  mar- 
gin of  all  our  Bibles  read.  For,  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  says, 
"It  was  as  well  known  before  the  gospel  began  that 
men,  women  and  children  were  baptized,  as  it  is  known 
that  the  sun  is  up,  when  shining.  The  whole  nation 
knew  well  enough,  that  infants  were  wont  to  be  bap- 
tized. There  Avas  no  need  for  a  precept  for  that 
which  was  always  settled  by  common  use.  On  the 
other  side,  it  WTtS  necessary  that  there  should  have 
been  an  express  and  plain  order,  that  infants  and  little 
children  should  not  be  baptized,  if  the  Saviour  had 
meant  that  they  should  not.  For,  since  it  w\as  custo- 
mary, in  all  ages  before,  to  have  infants  baptized,  if 
Christ  had  wished  that  usage  abolished,  he  would  have 
expressly  forbidden  it.     So  that  his  and  the  Scriptures' 


10 

silence  in  this  matter  does  confirm  and  establish  ini 
fant  baptism  forever." 

Again: — "The  baptizing  of  infants  was  a  thing  as- 
well  known  in  the  Jewish  church,  as  ever  it  has  been 
in  the  Christian  church." 

That  the  Apostles  so  understood  Christ,  is  evident 
from  their  common  practice  of  household  baptism, 
recorded  in  the  Acts.  And  the  christian  Fathers  so 
understood  this  commission  also;  as  a  specimen,  Justin 
Martyr,  Apol.  1,  says,  'Several  persons  among  us,  of 
sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  of  both  sexes,  who  were 
discipled  or  made  disciples,  (emathatdnthasan,  the  very 
word  that  Christ  uses.  Matt.  28:  19,)  to  Christ  in,  or 
from,  childhood,  do  continue  uncorrupted.' 

Here,  then,  we  find  Christ's  word,  rendered  'teach,' 
explained  'to  disciple  children,'  in  the  midst  of  the 
Apostles'  times;  for  those,  60  or  70  years  old  when 
Justin  wrote,  and  discipled  when  children,  must  have 
been  baptized  about  thirty  six  years  after  Christ'^s 
commission  was  given  at  his  ascension. 

But  many  persons  do  not  know,  or  believe,  that  in- 
fant baptism  was  in  common  use  in  the  Jemsh  church, 
before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  therefore  we  shall 
devote  a  little  time  to  show  that  fact.  This  is  a  point 
of  great  importance  to  be  known,  before  we  begin  to 
examine  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject  of  chris- 
tian baptism.  Because,  it  helps  us  greatly  in  under- 
standing many  passages  of  Scripture  property;  for  we 
must  put  ourselves  as  nearly  in  the  circumstances  of 
those  whom  Christ  and  the  Apostles  addressed  as  possi- 
ble, to  understand  them  fully.  It  would  seem,  that 
after  what  Ligiitfoot,  and  the  learned  Selden.  (whom 


n 

Grotius  pronounces  'Hhe  glory  of  the  English  yiatton,''- 
and  most  of  foreigners,  "the  dictator  of  learning  in  the 
English  nation/')  had  written  on  this  point,  that  none 
could  hesitate.  But  many  never  read  "a  large  book," 
and  we  must  be  short  and  pointed  in  our  quotations 
to  be  read. 

Paul,  I  Cor.  10:  I,  says  "all  our  fathers  were  bap- 
tized to  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

There  are  some  who  deny  all  Jewish  baptism,  and 
yet  quote  this  passage  to  prove  immersion.  They  can 
find  full  evidence  for  immersion  in  a  circumstance  that 
took  place  a  thousand  years  before  they  believe  bap- 
tism was  in  existence.  How  is  tliis?  They  say  there 
was  no  baptism  ever  instituted  till  the  days  of  John, 
and  yet  bring  up  this  circumstance,  that  occurred  hun- 
dreds of  years  before,  to  prove  what,  they  say,  was 
never  instituted  till  long  afterwards.  Now  they  must 
admit  Jewish  baptism  to  have  existed,  or  never  quote 
this  passage.  So  of  the  19th  verse  of  Hebrews,  9th 
chapter,  where  Paul  speaks  of  Moses  baptizing  all 
Israel  at  the  Mount.  Then  we  have  New  Testament 
evidence  for  Jewish  baptism,  as  well  as  evidence  from 
the  Fathers  and  Rabbles,  Who  can  question  such  evi- 
dence? The  advocates  of  immersion  all  try  to  deny 
Jewish  baptism,  for  they  know,  if  they  admit  it  they 
are  bound  to  admit  our  infant  baptism.  The  evidence, 
however,  is  as  clear  as  for  circumcision. 

Maimonides,  the  Jew,  quotes  this,  and  Ex.  19:  10, 
"Go  unto  the  people,  and  sanctify  them  to-day  and  to- 
morrow, and  let  them  wash  their  clothes,  and  be  read) 
against  the  third  day;"  and  says,  "by  three  things  did 
Israel  enter  into  covenant — circumcision,  baptism,  and 


Sacrifice.  And  so  in  all  ages,  wheh  a  proselyte  enters 
the  Jewish  church,  he  must  be  circumcised,  baptized^ 
and  bring  a  sacrifice." 

The  Talmud  says,  ^^Israel  does  not  enter  into  cove- 
nant, but  by  these  three  things,  circumcision,  baptism, 
and  a  peace  offering,  and  the  proselytes  in  like  manner." 

So,  II  Ch.  "Neither  do  p?-05e/t//e5  enter  into  covenant, 
but  by  circumcision,  baptism  and  sprinkling  of  blood." 

So,  Rabbi  Solomon,  "Our  fathers  entered  into  cove- 
nant by  circumcision,  baptism  and  sprinkling  of  blood." 

So,  St.  Gregory,  "Moses  gave  a  baptism,  but  it  was 
with  water  only,  and  before  that  they  were  baptized 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea.  But  these  were  but  a 
figure  or  type  of  ours,  as  Paul  also  understands  it." — 
Orat.  39. 

Paul  declares  the  same  fact,  Heb.  9:  19,  20 — "For 
when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  (Ex.  24:  6)  to 
all  the  people,  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood 
of  calves,  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool 
and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book,  and  all 
THE  PEOPLE,  saying,  this  is  the  blood  of  the  Testament 
which  God  hath  enjoined  unto  you."  In  verse  10  he 
calls  it  baptism  or  'washings.' 

That  they  always  baptized  the  children,  see  Gama- 
ra,  chapter  1 :  "If  with  a  proselyte,  his  sons  or  his  daugh- 
ters be  made  proselytes,  that  which  is  done  by  their 
father  redounds  to  their  good."  "Any  male  child  of  a 
proselyte,  under  the  age  of  thirteen  years  and  a  day, 
and  females  under  twelve  years  and  a  day,  they  bap- 
tize as  infants,  at  the  request,  or  by  the  consent  of  tlie 
father  or  court.  If  above  that  age,  they  consented  for 
themselves." 


Rabbi  Joseph  says,.'^This  is  to  be  understood  of  little 
children,  who  are  made  proselytes  with  their  fathers.'' 

^' An  Israelite  that  takes,  or  finds  a  little  heathen  in- 
fant, baptizes  him,  for  a  proselyte.  And  behold  he  i:^ 
a  proselyte." — Maimonides,  ch.  8.. 

Gyprian,  Epist.  73,  says,,  "The  case  of  the  Jews, 
who  were  baptized  by  the  Apostles,  was  different  from 
the  case  of  the  Gentiles,  for  the  Jews  had  already,  and 
long  ago,  the  baptism  of  the  law  and  of  Moses,  and 
were  now  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Then,  Paul,  all  the  Rabbies,  Maimonides,  Gregory, 
Cyprian,  and  most  learned  men  who  have  read  the 
Jewish  writings,  agree,.that  they  always  baptized  their 
PKOSELYTES  and  their  children  also,  so  that  house- 
hold baptism  was  perfectly  famiUar  to  Christ's  disci- 
ples, when  he  gave  his  commission,  and  so  we  shall  find 
them  practicing. 

Dr..  Jahn,  in  his  celebrated  book  on  "BibHcal  Arr 
chaeology,"  says  of  Jewish  Proselyte  baptism,  "The 
other  class  of  Proselytes,  called  the  righteous,wero  united 
with  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  people,  not  only-  by 
circumcision,  but  by  baptism  also.  The  Jews  assert 
that  the  baptism  of  Proselytes  is  mentioned  in  Exodus, 
19;  10,  14—24:  8,  and  Gen.  35:  2.-  They  not  only 
mention  that  it  is  a  necessary  ceremony,  but  assert  it 
is  so  efficacious,  that  it  puts  an  entire  end  to  the  con- 
nexion with  his  kindred,  according  to  the  flesh,  so  much 
so,  that  he  is  at  liberty,  if  he  chooses,  to  marry  his  own 
mother,  as  the  case  refered  to  in  I.. Cor.  5:  1 — "That 
one  should  marry  his  father's  wife." 

Again,  he  says,  "Christ  speaks  of  baptism  in  such  a 
way,  as  to  imply  that  it  was  well  known;  John  3:  10,. 


14 

*Art  thou  a  master  of  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these 
things?'  And  the  only  point  that  Nicodemus  did  not 
understand  was,  that  the  Jews  also,  who  were  already 
the  children  of  Abraham,  were  to  be  born  again  by 
baptism." 

The  truth  of  this  custom  is  also  evident  from  what 
the  Jews  said  to  John,  when  the  Piiests  and  Levites 
sent  men  to  ask  John,  "Who  art  thou?"  He  said,  "I 
am  not  Christ."  They  said,  then,  who  art  thou  ?  "Why 
baptizest  thou,  then?  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ,  nor  Eli- 
as,  neither  that  prophet?" — John  1 :  25.  They  seemed 
to  expect  Christ  and  EHas  would  baptize.  They  speak 
of  baptism  as  common — do  not  ask,  what  means  this 
new  thing,  baptism?  They  only  ask,  by  what  author- 
ity it  was  done.  Baptism  was  no  strange  thing  to  the 
Jews,  when  John  began  his  ministry.  They  seem  to 
have  been  fully  acquainted  with  it.  Then  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  the  Fathers  and  all  the  Rabbms 
fully  declare  proselyte  baptism  to  have  been  then  in 
practice. 

We  wish,  however,  to  be  fully  understood,  as  not 
founding  infant  baptism  upon  Jewish  proselyte  baptism, 
but  as  founding  it  upon  the  command  of  Christ  alone^ 
and  the  word  of  God — but  to  explain  the  language  of  the 
commission,  by  the  then  common  custom  of  the  Jews, 
as  familiar  to  the  Apostles.  So  that  tliose,  who  now 
attempt  to  show  that  we  should  never  baptize  a  child 
-of  a  baptized  parent,  or  that  we  are  bound  to  follow 
out  the  Jewish  baptism,  only  beat  the  air,  and  foam 
out  their  own  shame.  Our  baptism  is  taught  alone 
with  authority  in  the  Bible,  and  from  that  alone  can 
inferences  and  consequences  be  drawn. 


LETTER  IL 

THE  APOSTLES  PRACTICED  HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM 

CHRIST    RECOGNIZED    IT. 

That  the  Apostles  understood  Christ's  commission 
to  embrace  the  infants  of  believers,  is  evident  from  their 
practice.  They  either  did  or  did  not  perform  house- 
hold BAPTISM.  If  they  did  practice  it,  it  is  right  to 
baptize  infants  now — if  they  did  not,  then  it  is  wrong. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  the  only  inspired  church 
history  we  have  of  their  times,  so  that  book  must  set- 
tle this  point. 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  preached  his  first 
sermon  under  Christ's  last  commission,  and  shows  how 
he  understood  it,  thus: — "The  promise  is  unto  you  and 
your  children,  and  to  all  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call."— Acts  2:  39.  This  he  gives 
as  the  reason  why  they  should  turn  to  Christ,  and  be 
baptized.  What  promise  does  he  here  mean?  Doubt- 
less, a  part  of  the  promise  he  had  just  quoted  from 
Joel;  but  was  it  not  the  great  covenant  engagement 
of  God  to  his  church,  that  included  all  church  privi- 
leges? 

Isaiah  44:  3 — "Fear  not,  O  Jacob,  my  servant,  and 
Israel  whom  I  have  chosen:  For  I  will  pour  water  up- 
on him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground 
— I  will  pour  my  spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing 
upon  thine  offspring." 

Isaiah  59:  21 — ^"This  is  my  covenant  with  them, 
saith  the  Lord;  my  spirit  that  is  upon  thee,  and  my 
words  which  I  have  put  in  thy  mouth,  shall  not  depart 


16 

out  of  thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed;, 
nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed's  seed,  saith  the  Lord^, 
from  henceforth  and  forever.^'^ 

Genesis  17:  7,  10 — "I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations,  for  an.  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God 
unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  This  is  my  cov- 
enant, that  ye  shall  keep  between  me  and  you,  and 
tliy  seed  after  thee:.  Every  man  child  among:  you  shall 
be  circumcised."* 

This  was  "the  promise"  Peter  taught  in  his  first  ser- 
mon, when  the  church  was  organized,  at  Jerusalem. — 
Was  either  of  these  promises  applicable  ?  Were  they 
not  very  pertinent?  For  the  Jew  would  ask,  what 
must  be  done  with  my  children,  if  I  join  yom-  church? 
Taken  in  or  left  out?  Taken  in  by  all  means,  says  Pe- 
ter— "For  the  promise  is  to  you  and.to  your  children." 

But  turn  to  the  10th  of  Acts,  when  Peter  opens  the 
door  of  the  church  to  the  Gentiles,  as  here  to  the 
Jews.  There  you  find  CorneHus  and  his  household 
(33)  "all  present  before  God."  Peter  preached  unto 
them  words,  "whereby  thou  and  all  thy  house  shall  be 
saved,"  and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended,  or  fell,  on  them, 
"and  he  said,  can  any  man  forbid  water,  (to  be  bro't) 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which. have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?  And  he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord?" 

Does  not  this  look  like  household  baptisji?  But 
the  matter  is  still  much  plainer.  Acts  16:  15. — The 
Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart  to  attend  to  the  things 
spoken  of  Paul — "And  when  she  was  baptized,  and 
her  household,  she  besought  us,  &c."     This  is  an  unr 


17 

equivocal  instance  of  the  practice  of  liouschould  bap- 
tism, as  it  was  practiced  among  the  Jews. 

Again ;  in  this  same  chapter,  verse  33,  there  is  ano- 
ther case  of  it:  "And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of 
the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes;  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his  (household,)  straightway."  This  is  sta- 
ted just  as  familiarly,  by  the  writer,  as  if  he  had  been 
accustomed  to  it  all  his  life;  for  it  was  universally  cus- 
tomary in  the  Jewish  church.  But  would  not  a  writer 
now  be  very  apt  to  note  it  as  a  new  thing  under  the 
sun,  if  a  Baptist  minister  were  to  preach  in  a  man's 
house,  and  the  man,  the  head  of  the  fcimily,  were  to 
believe  and  be  baptized,  he  and  all  his  household,  im- 
mediately? Did — or  Vvdll  such  a  case  ever,  among  the 
Anti-pedobaptists,  take  place?  Then,  of  course,  they 
do  not  follow  Peter  and  Paul,  or  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, in  "household  baptism." 

Turn  now  to  Acts  18:  8.  Paul,  we  are  told,  enter- 
ed into  a  certain  man's  house,  named  Justus,  near  the 
synagogue — "And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house,  and 
many  of  the  Corinthians,  hearing,  believed  and  were 
l)aptized."  Here  is  another  plain  case  of  household 
baptism,  given  in  the  house  of  Justus.  And  Pa,ul,  I. 
Cor.,  1:  14,  16,  says — "I  thank  God  that  I  baptized 
none  of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gains.  And  I  baptized 
the  household  of  Stephanas."  Here  is  another  instance 
of  household  baptism.  Is  it  not  plain,  then,  that  tiie 
Apostles  understood  Christ  to  include  household  bap- 
tism, as  the  Jews  ever  had  done,  in  the  case  of  prose- 
lytes, as  shown  in  my  first  letter.  Or  is  it  true,  that 
Christ  misled  them,  by  the  use  of  the  word  that  should 


18 

have  been  rendered,  'proselyte,'  'disciple,'  all  nations? 

Let  us  now  examine  the  Gospels,  and  see  what 
Christ  did  and  said,  in  reference  to  children.  Did  he 
cast  them  out  of  the  church?  Or  did  he  not  say,  plain- 
ly, "of  such  is  the  gospel  church,"  or  kingdom  of  heav- 
en? As  we  have  given  all  that  is  said  of  household 
baptism  in  the  Acts,  v/e  shall  give  all  that  is  said  about 
children,  in  the  Gospels  also. 

Mat.  19:  13,  14,  15 — "Then  were  there  brought  un- 
to him  little  children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on 
them,  and  pray;  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.  But 
Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not 
(do  not  fail  to  bring  them)  to  come  unto  me;  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands  on 
them."  What  is  the  meaning  of  kingdom  of  heaven 
here?  The  kingdom  of  grace,  or  gospel  church,  or 
the  kingdom  of  glory?  We  suppose  all  will  say,  the 
church  on  earth. 

But  hear  what  Mark,  10:  13,  14,  15,  16,  says— 
"And  they  brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he 
should  touch  them;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those 
who  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was 
much  displeased,  and  said,  suffer  the  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever 
shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
(receives  it)  shall,  in  no  wi?c,  enter  therein.  And  he 
took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and 
blessed  them." 

What  an  opportunity  for  Christ  to  show  wliether  lie 
intended  children  to  be  received  into  the  Christian 
church;  or  for  him  to  exclude  them,  if  he  did  not  in- 


19 

tend  them  to  be  received.  Which  did  he  do?  Does 
he  say  they  must  he  received  or  rejected?  Let  any 
candid  man  say. 

1.  They  were  really  infants;  he  took  them  in  his 
arms,  put  his  hands  on  them,  and  blessed  them.  Just 
so,  we  put  our  hands  upon  them,  and  ask  God  to  bless 
them,  when  we  baptize  them — the  only  question  is, 
shall  we  take  locder  in  our  hands,  and  put  it  on  them 
also?  Then  we  do  not  err  in  putting  our  hands  on, 
and  asking  God  to  bless  them — it  is  only  in  taking 
water  in  the  hand. 

2.  '^Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  a  little  child,"  does  what?  Will  any  one  parse 
'little  child,'  and  tell  me  what  it  is  nominative  to,  if  it  be 
not,  ''receives  it,^''  understood  ?  Then  little  children  do . 
receive  the  kingdon  of  God,  or  are  to  be  received  into 
the  gospel  church*  But  how  can  any  one  be  received 
into  the  church,  or  kingdom  of  God,  any  other  way 
than  by  baptism?  Christ  says,  John  3:  5,  "Except  one 
(edin  met  tis,  any  one)  be  born  of  water,  (baptized)  and 
of  the  spirit,  he,  (or  they)  can  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God."  That  is,  without  baptism  no  one  caii 
enter  the  church  on  earth,  and  without  regeneration 
or  a  change  of  heart,  no  one  can  enter  the  kingdom  of 
glory. 

Dr.  Wall  declares  that  all  the  Fathers  explain  this 
verse  in  John  to  mean  infant  baptism;  "except  one  (that 
is,  every  one)  is  born  of  the  water  and  of  tlie  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  word  man 
ought  not  to  be  in  the  verse;  the  original  is,  ti^^  one. 
any  one,  every  one,  and  so  it  fully  applies  to  infants. 
It  never  was  explained  otherwise  till  recently;  and,  to 


20 

111}'  mind,  no  verse  in  the  Bible  is  more  pointed  and 
conclusive. 

Then  we  are  bound  to  baptize  children  or  disregard 
this  command  of  the  Saviour.  If  we  should  refuse  to 
baptize  them,  might  he  not  'be  greatly  displeased'  with 
us,  as  with  his  mistaken  disciples  of  old?  Again: 
Luke,  18:  15,  16,  17,  records  the  same  fact  in  the  ver} 
same  words,  only  he  calls  them  'infants' — Mark  says 
'little  children.'  So  that  we  need  not  repeat  the  same 
words. 

Then  all  that  the  Gospels  say  is  fully  and  decidedly 
in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  But  it  may  be  the  Epistles 
are  against  it.  If  so  we  shall  find  it  in  our  next.  Thus 
we  conclude  that  Christ's  own  conduct,  and  the  prac- 
tice of  his  disciples,  in  household  baptism,  in  the  book 
of  Acts,  correspond  with  the  language,  and  implication 
of  his  last  commission,  to  make  proselytes  of  all  nations* 
baptizing  them,  as  it  had  long  been  customary  in  the 
Jewish  church.  Household  and  infant  baptism  are  the 
same. 


LETTER  III. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  TAUGHT  IN  THE   EPISTLES,    AS 
EXPLAINED  BY  THE  FATHERS. 

As  the  Gospels  and  book  of  Acts  are  both  in  favour 
of  household  or  infant  baptism,  as  shown  in  the  last 
letter,  the  presumption  is  that  the  Epistles  are  like- 
wise, as  they  ail  mutually  corroborate,  strengthen,  and 
explain  each  other. 

One  thing  may  be  here  noted,  that  whenever  any- 
thing is  said  or  refered  to,  in  any  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  about  children,  it  is  in  favor  of  their  bap- 
tism, rather  than  against  it.  Paul  says,  I  Cor.  7:  14, 
*^For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife; 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband; 
else  were  your  children  unclean ;  but  now  are  they  ho- 
ly." We  need  not  stop  here  to  notice  what  some  have 
said  about  ^'domestic  holiness,"  and  ^'civil  holiness,"  or 
"spiritual  holiness ;"  the  simple  question  is,  how  docs 
an  unbelieving  pareik  become  "sanctified'^  by  the  be- 
lieving one,  so  as  to  make  the  children  '•''holy?'^  All 
know  the  word  "holy"  means  consecrated^  set  apart ^  as 
well  as  intrinsically  pure;  so  of  "holy  people,"  "holy 
mountain,"  "holy  vessels;"  so  Peter  calls  the  Gentiles 
"common,"  "or  unclean,"  because  not  consecrated  to 
God.  That  Paul  means  here  baptismal  holiness,  con- 
secration to  God,  i.  e.,  that  children  of  such  parents 
are  to  be  baptized,  is  evident  fix)m  all  the  Fathers,  and 
most  especially  from  Tertullian,  the  great  favorite  with 
all  Anti-paedobaptists,  as  the  only  one  who  ever  ques- 
tioned infant  baptism.      He  says,  "The  Apostle  says, 


22^ 

that  when  born  of  a  sanctified  (baptized)  parent  of 
either  sex,  children  arc  holy  as  from  seminal  preroga- 
tive; so  from  the  instituted  discipUne,  (or  baptism)  else 
v/ere  they  born  unclean,  but  now  are  they  designed 
for  holiness,  (to  be  baptized)  and  so  for  salvation — 
otherwise,  he  knew  well  enough  what  our  Lord  had 
determined,  'except  one  be  born  of  water,  (baptized) 
and  of  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,'  that  is,  he  shall  not  be  holy.  Thus  every  soul 
is  reckoned  in  Adam,  so  long,  till  it  be  anew  enrolled 
in  Christ,  and  so  long  unclean,  till  it  be  so  enrolled,  by 
baptism."  No  opposer  of  infant  baptism  can  question 
this  authority,  for  Tertullian  is  their  champion,  as  we 
i^hall  find  in  due  time. 

Augustine  or  Austin  says  of  this  text,  "For  there 
were  then  Christian  children,  or  infants,  that  were 
t-anctified,  (baptized)  some  by  the  authority  of  one  of 
their  parents,  some  by  the  consent  of  both."  These 
fathers  all  used  the  term  "sanctified"  to  express  bap- 
tism. So  again  Austin  says,  "But  this  is  to  be  held 
without  any  doubt,  that  whatever  that  holiness  may 
be,  it  is  not  available  to  making  them  christians,  or  to 
the  pardon  of  sin,  unless  they  be  made  faithfully  by 
the  christian  and  ecclesiastical  institution  and  sacra- 
ment" of  baptism.  "For  neither  are  unbelieving  hus- 
bands or  wives,  how  holy  and  just  partners  soever 
they  have,  cleansed  from  the  iniquity  which  keeps  them 
from  the  kingdom  of  God.  Nor  are  infants,  of  how* 
holy  and  just  parents  soever  they  come,  pardoned  the 
guilt  of  original  sin,  unless  they  (i.  e.  the  one  and  the 
other)  be  baptized  in  Christ."  So,  he  says,  "now  arc 
your  children  holy,  that  is,  now  are  they  baptized."-~» 


23 

8o  all  the  early  Fathers  understood  this  passage,  a? 
Ilierome,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Origcn,  Athanasius, 
Theodoret,  Paulinas,  and  Jerome. 

This  then  seems  not  only  the  most  natural,  but 
most  ancient,  and  generally  received  interpretation  of 
tlie  passage:  That  children  are  to  be  baptized,  if  on- 
ly one  parent  believes.  To  make  this  more  plain,  the 
learned  Seiden  has  conclusively  shown,  (as  all  the 
learned  will  now  acknowledge,)  that  the  Jews  consid- 
ered all  their  children  as  clean,  or  holy,  when  born, 
because  all  their  fathers  were  once  baptized  to  Moses ; 
and  so  when  a  proselyte  father  joined  the  Jewish  church 
he  and  all  his  children,  then  born,  were  baptized,  and 
circumcised,  but  if  he  had  any  other  children,  after  his 
baptism,  they  were  considered  holy,  and  were  not 
baptized,  but  only  circumcised.  This  being  the  Jew- 
ish custom,  when  the  Corinthians  became  Christians, 
and  were  all  to  be  baptized  to  Christ,  the  question 
arose,  must  our  children  be  baptized?  Yes,  says  the 
Apostle,  "the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children.'' — 
Well,  what  shall  become  of  those  children,  who  have 
but  one  baptized  and  beheving  parent?  Why,  they 
must  be  baptized,  for  "they  are  holy,"  that  is,  fit  sub- 
jects for  baptism.  This  passage,  says  Dr.  Mason,  "es- 
tabhshes  infant  church-membership  in  another  form; 
for  it  assumes  the  principle,  that  when  both  parents 
belong  to  the  church,  or  are  beUevers,  their  children 
belong  to  the  church  of  God  (i.  e.  are  the  subjects  of 
baptism)  as  a  matter  of  course.  For  if  the  faith  of 
both  parents  could  not  confer  on  the  child  member- 
ship, the  faith  of  one  of  them  certainly  could  not." — 
So,  unless  this  be  assumed,  the  case  never  would  have 


24 

been  mentioned.  Thus,  both  the  origin  and  the  ex- 
planation of  the  difficulty  establish  fully  Infant  Bap- 
tism. We  do  not  refer  to  the  host  of  commentators 
and  learned  men  of  modern  times,  who  so  explain  this 
verse;  we  prefer  the  ancient  Fathers,  because  there 
was  no  favorite  theory  to  bias  them,  for  all,  every 
body,  admitted  infant  baptism,  unless  we  except  the 
heretical  Tertullian. 

Another  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Collossians,  2: 
11,  13  verses,  refers  to  infant  baptism,  as  in  the  room  of 
circumcision,  and  of  course  it  is  to  he  applied  to  all  zcho 
zDcre  circumcised.  Hear  Paul,  himself,  declare  this 
truth:  "In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised,  v/ith  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumxcision  (bap- 
tism) of  Christ.  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein 
also  ye  arc  raised  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
Tha,t  Paul  here  docs  teach  that  Christian  baptism  has 
come  in  the  room  of  circumcision  is  most  plain,  from 
the  very  connexion,  saying  "which  are  shadows  of 
things  to  come,  but  Christ  the  substance,"  verse  17. — 
That  the  Paschal  lamb  was  a  type  or  shadow  of 
Christ's  Supper  is  not  more  conclusively  asserted,  than 
that  circumcision  was  a  type  of  baptism.  If  not,  what 
was  it  a  type  of?  But  this  matter  is  fully  settled  by 
those  men  that  knew  the  Apostles.  The  first  Fathers 
all  understood  Paul  to  refer  in  this  passage  to  baptism 
as  coming  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  If  this  can  be 
established,  then  of  course  infant  baptism,  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  stands  on  the  same  foundation  and  au- 
thority that  circumcision  did  in  the  Jewish  church.  But 


25 

now  for  tlie  proof  of  it,  refering  to  the  Fathers  below. 

Justin  Martyr  says,  "We  are  circumcised  by  bap- 
tism, with  Christ's  circumcision.  We  also,  who  by  him 
have  access  to  God,  have  not  received  this  carnal  cir- 
cumcision, but  the  spiritual  circumcision  Vv'^hich  Enoch 
and  those  like  him  observed.  And  we  have  received 
it  by  baptism,  and  it  is  enjoined  upon  all  persons  to 
receive  it  by  the  same  way." — Dialog,  sec.  43,  then 
quotes  the  text. 

Cyprian,  with  sixty  other  Bishops  in  council,  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  Apostles,  in  their  let- 
ter to  Fidas,  about  baptizing  children  at  eight  days 
old,  all  say  that  "the  eighth  day,  observed  in  the  Jew- 
ish circumcision,  was  a  type  going  before,  in  a  shadow 
and  resemblance,  but  on  Christ's  coming  was  fulfilled 
in  the  substance,"  (baptism:) — "Which  type  ceased 
when  the  substance  came,  and  the  spiritual  circumci- 
sion (baptism)  was  given  us.  So  that  we  judge  that 
no  person  is  to  be  hindered  from  obtaining  the  grace, 
(of  baptism)  by  the  law  that  now  appoints  it.  This, 
therefore,  dear  brother,  was  our  opinion  in  the  Assem- 
bly; that  it  is  not  for  us  to  hinder  any  person  from 
baptism,  and  tlie  grace  of  God.  Which  rule,  as  it 
holds  for  all,  so  we  think  it  is  more  especially  to  be 
observed  in  reference  to  infants  and  persons  newly 
born."  Does  not  this  council  of  the  whole  church  un- 
derstand Paul  to  say,  baptism  is  "the  circumcision  made 
without  hands?"  and  is,  therefore,  to  be  given  to  in- 
fants? How  often  they  call  baptism  circumcison,  and 
the  one  a  type  of  the  other.  But  as  Lord  Chancellor 
King  says,  (Inquiry,  part  2,  ch.  3,)  this  fully  "deter- 
mines the  common  practice  and  usage  of  the  zvhole  church. 


26 

The  unammaiis  determination  of  a  whole  Synod  of  sixty' 
six  members.  Here  is  a  sjnodical  decree  for  infant 
baptism,  as  formal  as  can  possibly  be  expected;  which, 
being  the  judgment  of  a  Synod,  is  more  authentic  and 
correct  than  that  of  a  private  father."  It  also  shows 
they  understood  baptism  to  be  in  the  room  of  circum- 
cision. 

Basil  says,  speaking  of  the  Jews  not  delaying  cir- 
cumcision, "and  dost  thou  put  off  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands  in  putting  off  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  which 
is  performed  in  baptism,  when  thou  hearest  our  Lord 
say,  'veiily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  one  be  born 
of  water,  and  of  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.'" 

Ambrose  says,  ''Neither  a  proselyte  that  is  old,  nor 
an  infant  born  in  the  house,  is  excepted.  Therefore^ 
both  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  all  that  believe,  must  learn 
to  circumcise  themselves  from  sin,  that  they  may  be 
saved;  for  no  person  comes  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
but  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  Both  the  home-born 
and  the  foreigner,  the  just  and  sinful,  must  be  circum- 
cised, for  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  Peter  says,  bap- 
tized. 

Chrj'sostom  says,  "But  our  circumcision,  I  mean  the 
grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure  without  any  pain  and  con- 
fers a  thousand  benefits;  and  it  has  no  determinate 
time  as  that  had,  but  one  in  the  very  beginning  of  his 
age,  or  one  in  middle  life,  or  one  that  is  in  old  age, 
may  receive  this  circumcision  made  without  hands." 

Austin  says  of  Chrysostom,  "Even  he,  as  well  as  the 
JMartyr  Cyprian,  teaches  that  the  circumcision  in  the 
flesh  was  commenced  in  the  way  of  a  type  of  baptism." 


27 

Again,  Austin  says,  "yet  we  may  besides  take  a  true 
estimate,  how  mucli  the  sacrament  of  baptism  docs 
avail  infants,  by  the  circumcision  God's  former  people 
received.  Therefore,  a.s  in  Abraham  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith  went  before,  and  circumcision  the  seal 
came  after  it,  so  in  CorncKus,  the  spirit  went  before, 
and  the  sacrament  of  baptism  came  after.  So  in  in- 
fants baptized,  the  sacrament  of  regeneration  goes  be- 
fore, and  conversion  of  the  heart  comes  after."  Could 
language  be  more  unequivocal,  to  show  baptism  to  be 
in  the  room  of  circumcision,  and  that  to  be  given  to 
infants? 

Once  more:  Epipha,nius  sajs,  "the  law  had  the  pat- 
tern  of  things  in  it;  but  the  truth  of  them  is  the  Gos- 
pel. The  law  had  circumcision  in  the  flesh,  serving 
for  a  time,  till  the  great  circumcision  came,  that  is, 
baptism;  which  circumcises  us  from  our  sins,  and  seals 
us  unto  the  name  of  God."  Thus  we  see  from  Paul 
to  Justin  Martyr,  and  from  Justin  to  Austin  five  hun- 
dred jears,  all  believed  baptism  to  be  in  the  room  of 
circumcision,  and  so  construed  the  a.bove  text,  and 
never,  till  the  rise  of  anabaptism  in  the  sixteenth  cen> 
tury,  was  it  denied. 

Then,  if  all  understood  baptism  to  be  in  the  room 
of  circumcision  for  the  first  1500  years,  and  if  infants 
were  circumcised,  of  course  infants  must  be  baptized. 
And  the  objection  sometimes  made,  that  no  female  in- 
fant was  circumcised,  and  therefore  no  female  should 
be  baptized,  is  answered,  fully  answered,  by  the  fact 
that  females  were  bajjtized  by  the  apostles,  and  thus  wc 
have  a  full  example  for  female  baptism;  while  our  oppo- 
sers  have  no  command  for  nor  example  of  female  com- 


28 

mnnion  half  as  clear*  "In  Christ,  male  and  female^ 
bond  and  free,  are  all  one.*'  It  is  but  a  mere  quibble 
to  make  such  an  objection.  The  male  always  repre- 
sents the  female^  and  the  Gre.ek  word  anthropos,  ren- 
dered ma7i,  means  the  race,  or  is  a  generic  term,  and  of 
course  includes  woman.  Thus,  Mr.  Boothe,  the  great 
Baptist,  proves yf'??ia/e  communion^  and  so  may  wc,  far 
more  easily,  prove  that  female  infants  should  be  bap- 
ti.^?d. 


LETTER  IV. 

THE    TWO    OBJECTIONS     TO    INFANT    BAPTIS3I     FULLY    AN- 
SWERED   IN    CONTRAST    WITH    TWO  SOUND 
ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  IT. 

Before  we  proceed  to  our  next  general  argu3ient. 
we  shall  here  obviate  an  objection  that  many  make 
against  all  we  can  say  on  this  subject. 

"The  Scriptures  require  fa,ith  and  repentance,  u\ 
order  to  baptism;  but  infants  have  not  faith  nor  repen- 
tance, therefore  infants  are  not  proper  subjects  ot 
baptism." 

This  is  the  great  argument  against  infant  bapti-n], 
and,  with  multitudes,  weighs  more  tha,n  all  the  rest. 
Ask  an  Anti-paedobaptist,  is  an  infant  a  proper  subject 
for  baptism?  he  says  no.  Why?  Because  he  cannoi 
repent,  be  taught,  or  believe.  But  is  it  an  answer,  or 
any  reason,  at  all,  why  an  infant  is  not^  to  say  tha,t  an 
adult  person  is  a  fit  subject?  I  ask,  is  an  infant  a  ra- 
tional being?  Is  it  any  ansv^^er  to  say  an  adult  person 
is  a  rational  creature?  Suppose  he  bring  up  ever\ 
passage  in  the  Bible  to  prove  that  repentance  and  faitli 
are  requisites  for  baptism.  The  question  is,  of  icJiorn 
are  these  duties  required?  All  must  say  o{ adults;  foi- 
the  Bible  never  requires  either  repentance  or  faith  of 
infants  now,  any  more  than  it  did  of  Jewish  children, 
in  order  to  circumcision.  State  the  argument  truly, 
thus:  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  of 
all  adults,  in  order  to  baptism:  but  it  fonts  cannot  have 
faith  and  repentance;  therefore  infants  arc  not  fit  sub- 
jects for  baptism.     So  the  Scriptures  require  faith  and 


30 

repentance  of  adults^  in  order  to  salvation:  but  infants 
cannot  have  these;  therefore  infants  cannot  be  saved* 
The  Bible  says,  that  he  (an  adult  person)  who  will  not 
work,  shall  not  eat:  but  an  infant  cannot  work;  there- 
fore an  infant  shall  not  eat.  The  Bible  says,  circum- 
cision verily  profitcth,  if  thou  keep  the  law;  but  infants 
cannot  keep  the  law;  therefore  their  circumcision  is 
unprofitable,  i.  e.,  a  mere  nullity.  Yet  God  gave  it  to 
infants,  and  says  "it  profiteth  much."  This  is  the 
Baptist  argum.ent,  but  is  it  not  a  mere  sophisyn?  This 
same  argument  would  prove  that  Christ's  baptism  was 
wrong,  and  that  no  Jewish  infant  eVer  enjoyed  the 
good  land  of  Canap.n.  Thus,  the  Bible  requires  faith 
and  repentance  of  all  persons,  in  order  to  baptism:  but 
Christ  could  not  have  repentance,  nor  that  faith  re- 
quired for  baptism;  therefore  Christ  could  not  be  bap- 
tized. But  Christ  rvas  baptized,  and  that  properly, 
and  therefore  the  argument  is  false.  So  Isaiah  1:  19— 
''If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient,  ye  shall  eat  the  good 
of  the  land:"  but  infants  could  not  be  willing  nor  obe- 
dient; therefore  infants  could  not  eat  the  good  of  the 
land.  But  infants  did  eat  the  good  of  the  land,  there- 
fore this  argument  is  false  and  unsound.  But  Presby- 
terians reason  on  the  same  words  conclusively,  thus: 
Faith  and  repentance  are  required  of  all  adults^  in 
order  to  be  baptized:  but  some  adults  have  not  these 
graces;  therefore,  some  adults  are  not  fit  subjects  for 
baptism.  We  believe  as  firmly  in  requiring  faith  and 
repentance  of  adults^  in  order  to  baptism,  as  do  the 
Baptists.  We  fully  agree  with  them,  in  believing  that 
faith  and  repentance  are  required  of  adults^  and  all  the 
passages  they  bring,  we  admit,  as  fully  as  they  nan. 


31 

Then  we  do  not  differ  about  believers  being  proper 
subjects  for  baptism.  But  why  bring  up  what  we  fully 
admit  to  be  true,  in  relation  to  adults^  to  disprove  infant 
baptism?  Does  it  follow  that  infant  baptism  is  wrongs 
because  believer's  baptism  is  right?  any  more  than, 
that  believer's  baptism  is  wrong,  because  I  prove  infant 
baptism  right.  Would  any  man  in  his  senses  say  that 
infants  would  be  lost^  because  I  prove  that  believers 
would  certainly  be  saved?  So,  away  with  you  sophism. 
The  question  is  about  infants.  Then  never  again 
bring  up  that  argument  to  prove  infant  baptism  wrong, 
which  all  admit  proves  adult  baptism  right.  If  you 
do,  your  answer  is  about  as  wise  as  this:  I  ask  you,  is 
an  infant  a  human  being?  You  reply  no,  because  an 
adult  is  a  human  being.  This  main  argument  or  ob- 
jection is,  then,  a  mere  evasion. 

There  is  one  more  objection,  or  argument,  if  you 
please  to  call  it  so,  against  infant  baptism.  Our  oppo- 
nents say,  "whoever  has  a  right  to  a  positive  ordinance 
must  be  expressly  mentioned  as  having  that  right:  but 
infants  arc  not  so  mentioned,  with  respect  to  baptism: 
therefore,  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized." 

This,  in  connexion  with  the  first  named  objection, 
constitutes  the  whole  ground  of  the  arguments  of  the 
opposers  of  infant  baptism.  Take  away  these  two, 
and  what  have  they  more !  But  do  not  our  opponents 
destroy  their  own  argument  in  their  daily  practice  of 
female  communion  ?  Where  is  an  express  command  for 
female  communion  ?  Yet  do  we  not  all  know  that  they 
have  a  right  to  commune.  Let  us  state  the  argument: 
Persons  who  have  a  right  to  a  positive  ordinance  must 
.  be  expressly  mentioned  as  havijig  that  right:  but  infantas 


32 

arc  not  expressly  mentioned  as  having  a  right  to  bap- 
tism, one  of  God's  positive  ordinances;  therefore  infants 
have  no  such  right  to  baptism.  Just  so,  persons  who 
have  a  right  to  a  positive  ordinance  of  God's  house 
must  he  expressly  mention  as  having  that  right;  but 
females  are  not  expressly  mentioned  as  having  a  right 
to  the  Lord's  supper,  the  other  positive  ordinance  oi 
God's  house,  and  therefore  females  have  no  right  to  the 
supper.  But  does  not  every  Cliristian  admit  they  have 
a  right  to  commune?  Yes.  Then  the  argument  is  false, 
a  mere  sophism.  When  you  show  me  one  express 
command  for  female  communion,  I  will  show  you  two 
for  wfant  baptism.  The  greatest  opposer  of  infant 
l^aptism  proves  that  females  should  commune,  because 
they  are  disciples,  as  follows:  ''Disciples  should  com- 
mune: but  females  are  disciples;  therefore  females 
should  commune."  So  we  prove  that  infants  should 
be  baptized  in  the  same  way.  Christ  says,  "Go  make 
DISCIPLES  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them:"  but  infants 
are  disciples,  (Mark,  10:  13;)  therefore,  infants  should 
[)e  baptized. 

Is  not  this  a  command  as  express  as  the  former?  But. 
again:  No  person  can  be  a  member  of  the  church  or 
kingdom  of  God  on  earth  without  baptism:  but  Christ 
says  of  infants,  "of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  oi' 
church  on  earth;  therefore  infants  must  be  baptized. 
This  rule  will  do  our  opponents  but  little  good.  It 
had  better  not  l)e  meddled  with,  for  we  may  turn  the 
tables  on  them  to  their  sorrow. 

Try  it  thus:  To  all  mentioned  in  a  covenant  or 
promise,  the  seal  of  that  covenant  or  promise  may,  and 
should  be  applied:  but  children  are  mentioned  m  the 


S3 

promise  to  Abraham,  (Gen»  17:  7;)  '^I  will  establish  m} 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto 
thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee;"  and  in  the  promise  at 
Pentecost,  (Acts  2:  39.)  "the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to 
your  children,  &c;-^  therefore  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
or  baptism  should  be  applied  to  children  since  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  Will  any  one  deny  this  truth?  The 
only  question  in  this  reasoning  is  this — has  baptis:^!  be- 
come the  seal  of  the  covenant  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision? This  was  shown  in  our  third  Letter.  But 
here  we  will  add  a  word  more  on  that  point.  Ilcrmas, 
Paul's  companion,  says,  "Alt  nations  under  heaven; 
have  heard,  and  believe  in  the  same  one  name  of  the 
son  of  God  by  whom  they  are  called ;  wdierefore,  hav- 
ing received  his  SEAL^they  have,  &c.— Now  that  seat, 
is  BAPTIS3I."  *  Baptism  and  circumcision  arc,  then, 
but  two  FORMS  of  the  same  seal;  as  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation, CIRCUMCISION  w^as  the  for.m  in  which  the 
SJCAL  was  applied,  so  is  baptism  now  the  form  of  tfie 
same  seal.  The  Fathers  all  called  it  "a  figure  of" 
Baptism:"  Austin,  "a  pattern,"  "a  type;"  Cyprian, 
"a  type,"  "a  shadow,"^  "a  resemblance;"  Epiphaniu-, 
^*the  truth  of  it." 

1,  CirciimcisioiL  was  the  seal  of  initialion  into  the 
.Tewish  church,  and  all  admit  haptism  is  the  same  in  tfic 
CijRisTiAN  church.  Then  baptism  is  certainly  in  the 
room  of  circumcision  here. 

2.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal  o^  pardon  and 
Justification  in  the  Jewish  church,  Rom.  4:  11 — "j\bra- 

*  This  passage  Mr.  Campbell  quotes  and  fully  admits  to  be  true,  and 
thus  determines  thivS  point. 


u 

iiam  received  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
(Justification)  of  the  faith  he  had  yet  being  uncircum- 
riscd;  tha.t  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve, though  they  be  not  circumcised:"  i.  e.,  Jews  and 
Gentiles  baptized  for  pardon  and  remission  of  sins  in 
the  Christian  church.  Peter  declares,  Acts  2:  38,  "Re- 
pent, and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ, /o>'  the  remission  of  sins.''  Then,  baptisrrt 
is  in  the  room  of  circumcision  here,  also,  as  a  seal. 

3.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  justification  in  the  Jew- 
ish church.  vSec  Dcut.  30:  6.  x\gain:  "He  is  a  Jevv 
who  is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the 
lieart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter.*'  "The  Lord 
v,ill  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all 
thv  soul,  that  thou  mayest  Hve?" 

So  Baptism  is  a  sign  and  means  of  Sanctification  in 
the  Christian  church  also.  "He  sanctifies  and  clean- 
ses by  the  washing  of  water,  by  the  word,"  &c. — 
Then,  here  Baptism  is  a  seal  in  place  of  circumcision 
ac-ain.  Mark,  a  seal  of  initiation  into  the  church — 
of  Justification^  and  Sanctification.  This  is  enough; 
admit  it  to  be  in  the  room  of  Circumcision  so  fn\  and 
:hc  li'hole  matter  is  settled.  For  this  is  as  far  as  it  need 
f'O.  My  syllogism  above,  then,  is  true.  Infants  are  in 
tlic  promise  or  covenant,  and,  therefore,  must  have  the 
sEvii  of  Baptism. 

Here  it  would  be  in  place  to  show  the  identity  of 
the  Christian  and  Jewish  church,  and  the  full  force  of 
that  whole  argument,  but  we  shall  sum  up  all  we  have 
to  say  on  this  point  under  the  two  following  remarks: 

I.  The  identity  of  the  Christian  and  Jewish  church 


35 

is  manifest  to  all  who  will  carefully  examine  the  Bible. 
That  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  constitu- 
ted a  visible  church  of  God,  is  declared  in  Genesis  17: 
9,  21,  and  has  been  over  and  again  fully  proven,  (see 
Peter  Edwards,)  which  fact  I  believe  all  our  opponents 
will  admit;  and  that  the  Christian  church  is  a  branch 
of  the  Abrahamic  church,  i.  e.,  the  Jewish  society  be- 
fore Christ  and  the  Christian  society  after  Christ  are 
one  and  the  same  church,  in  different  dispensations. 
Peter  declares  in  his  first  sermon,  Acts  2:  39 — ^-The 
promise  is  to  you  and  your  children,  and  to  all  afar  otf. 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

1.  The  theology  or  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament 
church  and  that  of  the  New  are  substantiaily  one  and 
the  same.  This  Dr.  Gill,  the  great  Baptist  divine, 
fully  shows  in  expounding  Gal.  3:  9. 

2.  The  morality  of  both  are  the  same,  says  Christ, 
Mat.  5:  17. 

3.  The  worship  is  one  and  the  same — Passover  nn<l 
Supper;  our  Passover  is  Christ,  I  Cor.  5:  7. 

4.  The  government  is  one  and  the  same,  hy  Ehlrr^ 
or  Presbyters,  Acts  14:  23* 

5.  Discipline  is  one  and  the  same,  i.  e.  initiation  anci 
regulation. 

6.  The  Scriptures  call  them  by  the  same  nuracsy 
thus.  Mat.  21:  43 — "The  kingdom  of  God  shall  .be 
taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  ibrth 
the  fruits  thereof."  The  same  kingdom  (church)  i^ 
taken  from  the  Jc7cs  and  is  given  to  the  Gcntih-. — 
Again:  Eph.  2:  14 — "He  is  our  peace,  who  hath  mode 
both  {Jews  and  Gentiles)  onc^  and  liath  broken  down 
the  middle  wall  of  partition,"  &c.  Is  the  Jewish  church 


36; 

called  a  tree?.  Then  the  Gentiles  are  the  branches- 
grafted  into  the  same  trunk  or  church,  into  which  the 
Jews  shall  be  grafted  again  when  they  believe. — Rom.. 
11.  \?>C\\vhi^  foundation?  Then  Jews  and  Gentiles 
are  built  upon  this  foundation,  "fellow-citizens  with' 
the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God."- — Eph.  2:  19.. 
Time  would  fail  me  to  give  all  such  evidence.  But 
some  say,  Christ  destroyed  the  Jezvish,  when  he  estab- 
lished the  Christian  church.  Then  he  did  not  "thor- 
oughly cleanse  his ^oor"  (church)  and  burn  up  the  chaff] 
but  he  burnt  the  floor  foo  and  the  wheat.  Then  he  did= 
not  give  "the  vineyard  to  others,"  but  destroyed  the 
vineyard  with  the  husbandmen,  and  planted  a  new 
vineyard.  Christ  has  destroyed  his  bride^  (the  church,)) 
and  now  has  created  another  new  one.  How  awfully 
absurd !  Then  we  conclude,  if  the  Scriptures  call  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  societies  by  the  same  names,  we 
are  to  believe  that  they  are  the  same,. 

II.  The  second  general  remark  is:  That  God  es- 
tablished the  membership  of  infants  in  the  Jewislr 
church  by  a  positive  ordinance,  that  of  Circumcision — 
this  our  opponents  admit;  that  infant  church-member- 
ship has  never  been  done  away  but  confirmed  under 
the  New  Testament;  that  what  is  once  granted  and 
/lever  revoked  remains  still  a  grant,  especially,  when 
the  grant  is  fully  recognized  and  confirmed  in  various 
other  ways.  But  as  infant  church-membership  cannot 
exist  without  subjection  to  a.  positive  ordinance,  and  as 
Circumcision,  the  first  positive  institution,  is  now  done 
away  with,  still  infants  must  be  received  by  a  positive 
ordinance  of  God  into  the  church :  but  Baptism  is  the 
positive  ordinance  of  God  by  which  persons  can  be 


37 


received  into  the  church;  therefore,  infants  must  of  ne- 
cessity be  baptized.  There  is  no  escaping  the  conclu- 
sion, but  by  saying  infants  may  be  received  into  the 
church  without  baptism— which  none  but  Quakers  will 
admit.  This  argument  amounts  to  a  demonstration, 
and  the  foregoing  sophisms  of  our  opposers  set  it  off  to 
great  advantage. 

We  shall  resume  our  second  argument  in  the  next 
Letter. 


LETTER  V. 

HISTORY  OF  INFANT  BAPTIS3I  FROM  ST.  JOHN  TO 
ORIGEN,  A.  D.  CCX. 

The  history  of  Infant  Baptism  confirms  ail  my  posi- 
tions, and  shows  most  conckisively  that  we  understand 
Cliiist  and  his  Apostles  correctly.  That  the  immedi- 
ate successors  of  the  Apostles  did  so  understand  them 
and  practice  Infant  Baptism  is  evident  from  their  wri- 
tings. That  Infant  Baptism  was  imiversallij  practiced 
in  all  Christian  churches,  without  so  much  as  one  ex- 
ception, for  five  hundred  years  after  Christ,  we  think 
can  be  abundantly  proved  from  a  regular  chain  of  evi- 
dence connecting  with  the  Apostles  and  ending  with 
Augustine,  And  that  there  never  was  but  one  inati, 
and  his  little  handful  of  followers,  who  questioned  or 
denied  Infant  Baptism,  until  the  rise  of  the  x\nabaptists 
in  the  1 6th  century,  we  think  can  be  demonstrated  to 
all  intelligent  minds.  So  that  the  history  of  Infant 
Baptism  commences  in  the  Jewish  church,  when  bap- 
tized to  Moses  and  sanctified  to  God  when  they  en- 
tered into  covenant  in  the  wilderness,  and  extends  on 
till  the  time  of  Christ  without  any  intermission,  (it  only 
being  the  more  confirmed ;)  that  it  prevailed  while  he 
li\  ed,  and  was  continued  by  his  disciples  and  their  suc- 
cessors from  one  generation  to  another,  till  denied  by 
Peter  Bruce,  and  later  but  more  fully  and  incon- 
sistently by  the  Anabaptists,  and  that  it  has  always, 
and  does  at  this  ti3ie  prevail  in  every  Christian  and 
e\  en  Jewish  church  in  the  known  world,  save  the  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  Baptists.     This  may  seeni  high  ground, 


39 

but  we  jjledge  ourselves  to  show  It  to  every  candid 
reader  of  these  Letters. 

1.  The  Fathers,  acquainted  with  the  Apostles,  who 
say  any  thing  on  the  suhject  of  baptism,  testify  of  in- 
fant BAPTISM.  John  the  Apostle  lived  till  tlie  end  of 
the  first  century,  so  that  we  shall  follow  Dr.  Wall  in 
dates,  making  the  second  century  after  Christ  the  first 
after  the  Apostles. 

Hermas,  a  man  Paul  mentions,  (Rom.  16:14,)  sayi, 
"All  infants  are  in  honor  with  the  Lord,"  and  '-the 
BAPTIS3I  of  WATER  is  ncccssary  to  all;"  i.  e.,  of  sucti 
are  the  kingdom  of  God,  says  Christ,  (Lib.  3,  SiniL  U, 
Ch.  29.) 

Justin  Martyr,  A.pol.  1,  says,  "Several  persons 
among  us,  of  both  sexes,  some  sixty,  and  some  seventy 
years  old,  who  were  made  disciples  of  Christ  (expaidon) 
from  their  childhood  or  infancy,  do  continue  true 
disciples." 

These  persons,  then,  were  baptized  before  the  death 
of  John,  and  while  the  Apostles  were  in  the  midst  of 
their  labours,  and  before  some  parts  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament were  written — i.  c.,  about  3G  years  after 
Christ's  ascension.  But  mark,  again;  Justin  uses  the 
very  words  of  Christ's  commission,  (cmalhateuihasan)  and 
applies  it  to  children,  [ex  paidon,)  Compare  Mat.  "28: 
19  with  this  passage  of  Justin,  and  none  can  deny  In- 
fant Baptism.  Again;  Dialog.  Try.,  sec.  43.  ••^V'e 
also,  who  by  him  have  access  to  God,  have  not  received 
this  carnal  circumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circumcision 
which  Enoch,  and  those  like  liim,  obsci-vc.  And  we 
have  received  it  by  baptis.m,  by  tlie  mercy  of  God,  be- 
cause we  are  sinners:  and  it  is  allowed  to  all  persons 


40  • 

to  receive  it  in  the  same  way."  This  not  only  shows 
BAPTISM  to  he  in  the  room  o/circu3icision,  but  that  '*all 
kinds  of  persons"  should  be  baptized;  i.  e.,  infants, 
male  and  female,  as  well  as  believers,  are  proper  sub- 
jects for  baptism.  If  infants  were  tircumcised,  then 
of  course  Justin  means  they  should  be  baptized,  when 
lie  says,  "all  persons."  Thus  Justin  and  Hermas 
form  the  link  between  the  Apostles  and  the  long  chain 
of  Fathers  that  follow. 

Irenius  lived  67  years  after  the  Apostles,  A.  D.  167, 
so  he  is  the  next  link.  He  says  of  Christ,  "For  he 
came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself — all,  I  mean,  who 
])y  him  are  baptized,  (regenerated)  unto  God,  infants 
and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youth,  and  elder 
persons."  This  testimony  is  clear,  and  is  really  almost 
Apostolic,  for  Irenius  was  brought  up,  in  a  measure, 
under  Polycarp,  St.  John's  disciple,  whom  he  calls  ^'•the 
angel  of  the  church  of  Smyrna." — Rev.  2:  8;  Iron,  ad 
Heres,  Lib.  2,  Ch.  39. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  lived  in  the  same  century 
with  Irenius,  92  years  after  John.  He,  speaking  of 
tlie  rings,  and  seals  engraven  on  them,  to  be  worn  by 
the  early  Christians,  says,  "Let  your  seal  be  a  dovej 
or  a  fish,  or  a  ship  under  sail,  or  a  harp,  or  an  anchor, 
(which  Saleneus  made  his  choice;)  and  if  any  one  be 
a  fisherman,  let  him  think  of  an  Apostle  and  the  chil- 
dren taken  from  the  water,"  of  baptism.  Thus  he  re- 
commends the  figure  of  an  Apostle  baptizing  a  little 
child,  as  suitable  to  be  engraven  on  a  ring  for  the  hand 
of  Christians.  Dr.  Wall,  vol.  1,  ch.  3,  mentions  an  en- 
graving of  this  kind  in  Bridekirk,  one  of  the  oldest 
churches  in  England,  where  "a  person  in  a  longsacer- 


41 

tiotal  habit  is  baptizing  a  chiM,  and  a  dove,  the  emblem 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hovering  over  the  infant."  This  is 
engraven  on  the  font-stone  in  the  church.  The  seal 
of  Clemens  shows  that  the  Apostles  might  have  or  did 
baptize  infants. 

TuRTULLiAN  Hvcd  100  ycars  after  John,  A.  D.  200. 
He  was  the  most  heretical  Father,  and  licld  that  one 
MoNTANus  was  the  promised  comforter  or  Holy  Spirits 
He  says — "But  they  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer  bap- 
tism, are  to  know  that  it  must  not  be  given  rashly." 

Therefore,  according  to  every  one's  condition,  and 
disposition,  and  also,  their  age,  the  delaying  of  baptism 
is  more  profitable,  especially  in  the  case  of  little  chil* 
dren.  For  what  need  is  there  that  the  sponsors  incur 
danger.  For  they  may  fail  of  their  promises  by  death, 
or  may  be  disappointed  by  a  child's  proving  to  be  of 
a  wicked  disposition.  Our  Lord,  indeed,  says,  'forbid 
them  not  to  come  to  me.'  Then  to  baptize  children 
in  the  days  of  the  writer  was  a  general  custom,  and 
founded  on  the  above  command  of  Christ,  Mark  10: 
14.  Again:  Turtullian,  Ch.  39,  says,  "So  there  is  al- 
most no  being  born  clean,  (free  from  sin)  that  is,  of 
heathens.  For  hence  the  Apostle  says,  that  if  either 
parent  be  sanctified,  the  children  that  are  born  are 
holy,  by  reason  of  the  prerogative  of  that  seed,  and 
also,  the  instruction  in  their  education.  Else,  he  says, 
were  they  unclean.  But  yet  meaning  to  be  under- 
stood thus,  that  the  children  of  the  faithful  (i.  e.,  be- 
lievers) are  designed  for  holiness,  (i.  e.,  baptism,)  and 
so  for  salvation.  That  by  a  pledge  of  such  hope,  he 
might  plead  for  those  marriages  which  he  would  have 
to  be  continued.      Otherwise,  he  knew  well  enough 


what  our  Lord  had  determined:  Except  o>e  he  horn 
of  water  and  the  spirit,  he  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God;  i.  e.,  he  shall  not  he  holy."  A  child 
is  ONE  and  so  must  he  baptized.  Is  it  not  strange  that 
any  persons  should  quote  Turtullian  as  denying  Infant 
Baptism?  Read  the  above  over,  for  this  is  the  only 
author  for  500  years  after  Christ  that  can  he  found, 
who  even  advised  the  delay  of  Infant  Baptism.  But 
does  he  deny  it?  No,  hut  speaks  of  it  as  then  the  com- 
mon practice  of  the  church,  and  explains,  I  Cor.  7:  14, 
just  as  we  do.  Then  remember,  this  champion  of 
Anti-paedohaptists  proves  unequivocally  Infant  Bap- 
tism. He  advised  adults  to  put  off  baptism  till  just  be- 
fore death,  but  was  that  denying  baptism  altogether? 
In  cases  of  necessity  he  would  not  advise  the  delay  of 
baptism,  but  in  all  others  till  just  at  death.  This  was 
just  like  all  Turtullian's  wild  notions.  Let  those  who 
wish  follow  him  in  this,  but  let  them  not  deny  that  liis 
writings  prove  fully  and  conclusively  Infant  Baptism 
to  have  been  the  general  custom  of  the  churches  in 
those  days. 

Origen  vv^as  cotemporary  with  Turtullian,  110  years 
after  John,  A.  D.  210,  the  most  learned  man  of  his  day, 
aaid  was  descended  from  Christian  parents.  His  grand- 
father must  have  lived  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  as 
he  vras  born  85  years  after  John.  He  says:  "Ac- 
cording to  the  usage  of  the  church,  bai'tis3i  is  given 
also  to  infants,  where,  if  there  was  nothing  in  infants 
that  wanted  forgiveness  and  mercy,  baptism  would  he 
needless  to  tliem."  "Because,  by  baptism,  native  pol- 
lution is  taken  away,  therefore,  infants  are  baptized.*' 
Again:   "For  this  reason  it  was,  that  the  church  re- 


43 

ceived  an  order  from  tiie  Apostles  to  give  baptism  to 
infants." — Wall,  vol.  1,  ch.  5.  Could  language  be 
plainer  than  this,  by  a  man  born  85  years  after  the 
Apostles?  Then  the  greatest  and  most  learned  man 
in  the  church,  110  years  after  John,  says  the  Apostles 
had  given  orders  for  Infant  Baptism.  Now,  bear  in 
mind,  all  this  is  before  the  days  of  Cyprian,  when  the 
council  of  sixty-six  Bishops  met,  as  we  shall  find  in  our 
next. 

But  I  wish  here  to  say,  that  we  have  Infant  Baptism 
thus  most  unequivocally  proven  in  the  first  two  centu- 
ries after  Christ;  yet  you  will  hear  men,  professing  to 
be  men  of  sense  and  veracity,  say  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  brought  into  the  church  by  a  council  that  met,  A. 
D.  253,  to  decide  whether  or  not  infants  should  be 
baptized.  The  full  history  of  that  council  shall  be  given 
in  my  next  Letter. 


LETTER  VI. 

THE    FIRST    COUNCIL    ON    INFANT    BAPTISM  UNDER 
CYPRIAN,  A.  D.  CCLIII. 

Cyprian  was  contemporary  with  Origen,  the  last 
Father  mentioned  in  my  fifth  letter.  He  was  Bishop 
-of  Carthage,  in  which  city,  A.  D.  253,  a  council  of 
sixty-six  Bishops,  of  which  Cyprian  was  moderator, 
met  to  attend  to  church  affairs,  when  one  Fidus,  a 
■country  minister,  sent  up  a  letter,  with  two  cases,  to 
he  decided.  One  was  in  relation  to  Victor,  who  had 
been  restored  too  soon  after  some  crime;  and  the  oth- 
er was,  "Whether  it  was  necessary,  in  baptism,  as  in 
the  case  of  circumcision,  to  wait  till  the  eighth  day, 
(so  prevalent  was  the  idea,  that  baptism  had  come  in 
the  room  of  circumcision,)  or  whether  a  child  might  be 
baptized  at  an  earlier  time?"  The  question  was  not, 
whether  infants  should  be  baptized,  for  all  seemed  to 
take  that  for  granted,  but  at  what  time?  Must  the 
vule,  as  in  the  case  of  circumcision,  be  rigidly  adhered 
to?  The  council  decided  unanimously  as  follows  in  a 
letter  to  Fidus: 

'^Cyprian  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops,  who  were 
present  at  the  council,  sixty-six  in  number,  to  Fidus, 
our  brother,  greeting:  As  to  the  case  of  infants, 
whereas  you  judge  that  they  should  not  be  baptized 
within  two  or  three  days  after  they  are  born;  and  that 
the  rule  of  circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  so  that  none 
shall  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the  eight  day 
after  he  is  born;  we  were  all  in  our  assembly,  of  the 
contrary  opinion.    For,  as  for  what  you  thought  fitting 


45 

to  be  done,  there  was  not  one  that  was  of  your  mihcf^ 
but  all  of  us,  on  the  contrary,  judged  that  the  grace 
and  mercy  of  God  is  to  be  denied  to  no:  person  that  is 
born.  That  the  eighth  day  observed  in  the  Jewish 
church  circumcision  was  a  type  going  before  in  a 
shadow  and  resemblance,  but  on  Christ's  coming  was 
fulfilled  in  the  substance,  which  type  ceased  when  the 
substance  (baptism)  came,  and  the  spiritual  circumci- 
sion was  given  to  us.  So  that  no  person  is  to  be  hin- 
dered from  obtaining  the  grace  (of  baptism)  by  the 
law  that  is  now  appointed.  This,  therefore,  dear  broth- 
er, was  our  opinion  in  the  assembly — that  it  is  not  for 
us  to  hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of 
God,  who  is  merciful,  and  kind,  and  affectionate  to  all.. 
Which  ruh^  as  it  holds  for  all^  so  we  think  it  more  especi- 
ally to  be  observed  in  reference  to  infants^  and  persons 
newly  born?  Dear  brother,  we  wish  you,,  always,  good 
health."' 

No  honest  man  can  misunderstand  this  letter — it 
proves  Infant  Baptism  to  be  taken  for  granted,  both 
by  Fidus  who  put  the  question,  and  the  whole  council 
who  decided  it.  This  is  what  a  great  Baptist  writer 
calls  Hhe  spring-head  of  Infant  Baptism,'  the  starting 
point  of  it  in  the  church.  So  Mr.  Gale  admitted,  that 
from  this  time  Infant  Baptism  was  tlic  j)ractice  of  the 
church,  i.  e.,  after  Cyprian,  and  did  not  ev^cn  attempt 
a  reply  to  Dr.  Wall's  history.  Indeed,  this  is  the  com- 
mon plea.  One  of  the  most  learned  opposers  of  Infant 
Baptism  in  the  State,  said  in  this  place  tlie  other  da> . 
that  when  the  church  became  corrupt  and  heathenish, 
and  supposed  that  all  unbaptized  children  went  into. 
MMBO  and  not  to  heaven,  in  the  days  of  Cypi'ian,  In- 


46 

faiit  Baptism  was  brought  into  the  Christian  church  by 
the  act  of  a  council.  Is  not  this  passingly  strange  for 
intelligent  men?  The  only  evidence  for  the  assertion 
we  have  given  in  the  above  letter,  and  let  any  one 
read  it  over  and  see  whether  it  is  not  wholly  untrue, 
without  even  a  shadow  of  proof.  Augustine  and  Jerome 
quote  this  same  letter  of  the  council  and  declare  it 
genuine,  saying:  "Blessed  Cyprian  decreed,  with  a 
number  of  his  fellow  bishops,  that  a  child,  new  born, 
might  be  properly  baptized,  not  thereby  making  any 
iiew  decree,  but  retaining  the  faith  of  the  church  be^ 
fore  most  firmly  established." — Epis.  28,  to  Hieron.— 
80  again,  Lib.  3 — "Holy  Cyprian  was  asked,  wheth- 
er an  infant  might  be  baptized  before  the  eighth  day, 
beca,use  in  the  law  it  was  not  lawful  to  circumcise  but 
on  the  eighth  day.  The  question  was  of  the  day  of 
baptizing,"  &c. 

Thus,  all  the  Fathers  understood  this  letter  as  we 
do,  and  say  that  it  was  a  'question  of  the  r/r/^,'  not  a- 
bout  the  fad;  and  that  this  decision  was  nothing  new, 
but  only  declaring  "tlic  practice  or  faith  of  the  church 
most  firmly  established  before."  How  can  any  candid 
man  say,  then,  it  was  a  new  decree,  bringing  infants 
into  the  church,  who  were  before  out?  That  the  poini 
may  be  clear,  notice: 

1.  The  council  all  took  Infant  Baptism  for  granted, 
and  so  did  Fidus,  who  put  the  question  simply  about 
the  day,  or  time  of  it.  The  decree  settles  simply  the 
question  as  to  time.     And  thus  shows  the  practice. 

2.  Augustine  says,  this  was  'no  new  decree,'  but 
only  declaring  the  cstabhshed  practice  of  the  church, 
I0  be  Infant  Baptism% 


47 

3.  We  have  also  fully  proved  this  practice  (letter 
fifth)  to  have  hcen  common  in  the  church,  by  Hermas, 
Justin,  Irenius,  Clemens,  Tertuliian,  and  Origen,  ail  of 
whom  lived  and  wrote  before  Cyprian. 

4.  This  letter  settles  the  practice  of  the  whole  church 
at  that  time,  and  is  evidence  as  conclusive  as  could  be 
recorded  in  words,  and  that  without  one  dissenting 
voice,  only  one  hundred  and  fifty-two  years  after  John. 
The  man,  with  these  facts  before  his  mind,  (and  this  is 
ail  the  evidence.)  who  can  cither  assert  or  believe  that 
this  council  did  introduce  Infant  Baptism  into  the 
church  for  the  first  time,  could  believe  in  'extracting 
sun-beams  from  cucumbers,*  and  is  rather  to  be  pitied 
than  reasoned  with.  Dr.  Milner  says  of  this  council, 
'•Here  is  a  whole  assembly  of  sixty-six  pastors,  men  ot 
approved  fidelity  and  gravity,  who  had  stood  the  fiery 
tiial  of  some  of  the  severest  persecutions  ever  known; 
vv'iio  liad  testified  their  love  to  their  Lord  Jesus  in  a 
more  striking  manner  than  any  Anti-paedobaptists  have 
had  an  opportunity  of  doing  in  our  days,  and  who 
seem  not  to  be  wanting  in  any  fundamental  of  godli- 
ness. Before  this  assembly  a  question  is  brought — not 
whether  infants  should  be  baptized — (none  contradic- 
ted this — )  but  whether  they  sliouid  be  baptized  im- 
mediately or  on  the  eiglith  day.  To  a  man,  they  de- 
termine to  baptize  them  immediately:  Let  the  reader 
consider.'- — Ec.  His.  vol.  1,  p.  402.  Among  ail  these 
pastors,  doubtless,  there  were  some  advemced  in  age, 
whose  ancestors  lived  witii  the  Apostles,  and  knew 
Vf-Q\\  their  practice.  If  Infant  Baptism  was  an  innova- 
tion, would  they  not  liavc  known  it,  and  if  they  knew 
it,  Vy-Quld  they  not  have  opposed  it  as  an  error?     Let 


4S 

'the  reader  answer.  Lord  Chancellor  King,  part  % 
ch.  3  of  his  Inquiry  of  the  primitive  church,  quotes  thi:^ 
decree,  and  says,  "Here,  then,  is  a  synodical  decree 
for  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  as  formal  as  can  possibly 
be  expected;  which,  being  the  judgment  of  a  Synod, 
is  more  authentic  and  cogent  tlian  that  of  a  private 
father,  it  being  supposable  that  a  private  father  might 
write  his  own  particular  judgement  and  opinion  only:, 
but  the  determination  of  a  synod  [of  66  bishops]  de- 
notes the  common  practice  and  usage  of  the  whole 
church."'  I  have  been  thus  particular  on  this  evidence 
of  Cyprian,  because  it  is  so  plain  that  no  opposer  oC 
Infant  Baptism  ever  could  deny  it,  hence  their  great 
efforts  to  prove  that  it  was  the  very  commencement  oi' 
the  practice;  and  because  they  all  admit,  that  after 
this  time  Infant  Baptism  was  the  general  practice  ef 
the  churcli,  till  the  I2th  or  16th  century. 

I  conclude  this  letter  with  the  reflections  of  the  cel- 
ebrated Mr.  Gale,  (a  Baptist,)  in  answer  to  Dr.  Wall: 
"I  will  grant  it  probable,  that  what  all  or  most  of  the 
churches  practiced  immediately  after  the  Apostles' 
time  had  been  appointed  a  practice  by  the  Apostits 
themselves,  for  it  is  hardly  to  be  imagined  that  any 
considerable  body  of  these  ancient  Christians,  and  much 
less  that  the  whole,  should  so  soon  deviate  from  the 
customs  and  injunctions  of  their  venerable  founders, 
whose  authority  they  held  so  sacred.  New  opinions 
or  practices  are  usually  introduced  by  degrees,  and 
not  without  opposition.  Therefore,  in  regard  to  bap- 
tism, a  thing  of  such  universal  concern  and  daily  prac- 
tice, I  allftw  it  to  be  very  probable  that  the  primitive 
churches  kept  to  the  Apostolic  Pattern."      Poos   liot 


49 


this  apply,  with  great  propriety,  to  the  letter  of  this 
council,  and  show  it  to  have  been  the  Apostolic  order 
to  baptize  children?  How  could  the  practice  come  in 
"by  degrees,''  in  so  short  a  time,  and  no  one  say  a  word 
against  it?  Mr.  Gale's  own  testimony,  then,  decides 
fully  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  being  Apostolic,  or 
it  could  not  have  become  universal  in  150  years. 


LETTER  VII. 

HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM    FROM    CYPRIAN    TO 
AUGUSTINE,  A.   D.  CCCC. 

In  Hhe  Apostolic  Constitutions,'  ascribed  to  Clement 
of  Rome,  and  known  to  all  to  have  existed  in  the 
earliest  ages  of  the  church,  it  is  said,  'Baptize  your  in- 
fants,' and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admoni- 
tion of  the  Lord.  For  he  says,  'Suffer  little  children 
to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not.' — Wall,  part  1, 
ch.  23. 

Again:  'Our  divine  guides,  (the  Apostles  of  Christ) 
or  instructors,  considering  this,  have  thought  fit  that 
children  should  be  admitted  after  this  holy  manner,'  of 
baptism.  Again:  "Inasmuch  as  our  Lord  says,  'Suf- 
fer little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,'  and  the  Apostle  says,  'now  are 
your  children  holy,'  it  is  plain  that  the  children  of  be- 
lievers do,  if  they  be  baptized,  go  as  spotless  and  faith- 
ful into  the  kingdom  of  Heaven." 

In  'Questions  and  Answers  to  the  Orthodox,'  ascribed 
to  Justin  Martyr,  it  is  said,  "The  difference  between 
those  infants  that  have  been  baptized,  and  those  that 
have  not,  will  be,  that  the  baptized  will  be  made  par- 
takers of  the  blessings  granted  by  baptism,  and  the 
unbaptized  not;  and  these  blessings  are  granted  for  the 
sake  of  the  faith  of  those  that  bring  them." 

About  260  years  after  the  Apostles  lived  Optatus, 
who  compares  Christ's  baptism  to  a  garment,  quoting  the 
words  of  Paul,  "as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
into  the  name  of  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ,"  and  adds, 


51 

**0,  what  a  garment  is  this,  that  is  always  one,  and 
never  renewed;  that  decently  fits  all  ages  and  shapes! 
It  is  neither  too  big  for  infants,  nor  too  little  for  men, 
and,  without  any  altering,  fits  women."     This  is  plain. 

Basil,  the  great,  was  cotemporary  with  Optatus. 
Theodoret  says  of  him,  "That  he,  coming  into  the  pal- 
ace (of  Valens,  the  Arian,)  and  seeing  tlie  Emperor's 
child  at  the  point  of  death,  undertook  that  he  would 
recover,  if  he  had  baptism  given  him  by  the  hands  of 
the  godly;  and  having  said  this,  he  went  away.  But 
the  Emperor  gave  order  to  some  who  were  present,  to 
baptize  the  child." 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  says,  "Basil  was  earned  to  the 
baptismal  font,  and  consecrated  to  God  from  his  infan- 
cy." Also  in  his  oration  on  Baptism,  Wall,  p.  1,  ch. 
9,  he  says,  "Hast  thou  an  infant  child?  Let  not  wick- 
edness have  the  advantage  of  time;  let  him  be  sancti- 
fied (i.  e.  baptized)  from  his  infancy.  Thou,  as  a  faint- 
hearted mother,  and  of  little  faith,  art  afraid  of  giving 
him  the  seal,  because  of  the  weakness  of  nature.  Give 
liim  (baptism  in  the  name  of )  the  trinity,  that  great 
and  excellent  preservative."  Again:  "Some  may  say, 
suppose  this  to  hold  in  the  case  of  those  that  can  desire 
baptism,  what  say  you  to  those  that  are  yet  infants, 
and  are  not  in  a  capacity  to  be  sensible,  either  of  the 
grace  or  the  miss  of  it?  Shall  we  baptize  them  too? 
Yes,  by  all  means,  if  danger  make  it  requisite.  For  it 
is  better  that  they  be  sanctified  without  their  own 
sense  of  it,  than  that  they  die  unsealed  and  uninitiated. 
And  a  ground  of  this,  to  us,  is  circumcision,"  &c. 
^Wall,  ch.  9. 

Basil,  A.  D.  260,  says,  "And  those  little  boys  who 


m 

have  left  their  books  at  school,  &:c.,  and  the  infants 
that  have  no  sense,  nor  any  guilt,  they  also  are  brought 
thick  and  in  crowds  to  the  public  confession,"  i.  e.  to 
be  dedicated  to  God. — Wall,  part  1,  ch.  12. 

Ambrose  lived  274  years  after  the  Apostles.  He 
says,  "Those  infants,  that  are  baptized,  are  reformed 
back  again  from  a  wicked  to  the  primitive  state  of  their 
nature."  "For,  unless  any  person  be  born  again  of 
water  and  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God."  You  see  he  excepts  no  person,  not  an  in- 
font,  not  one  that  is  hindered  by  any  unavoidable  ac- 
cident. 

Chrysostom,  in  280,  says,  "But  our  circumcision,  I 
mean  the  grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure  without  pain, 
and  procures  to  us  a  thousand  benefits,  and  fills  us  w  ith 
the  grace  of  the  spiiit;  and  it  has  no  determinate  time, 
as  that  had;  but  one  that  is  in  the  very  beginning  of 
his  age,  one  in  middle  life,  or  old  age,  may  receive  this 
circumcision  made  without  hands."  "For  this  cause, 
also,  we  baptize  infants,  though  they  are  not  defiled 
with  (actual)  sin,  that  there  may  be  added  to  them 
saintship,  and  those  that  are  baptized  of  them,  foras- 
much as  they  were  children  when  they  received  it,  and 
some  in  a  fit  of  sickness,"  &c. — Wall,  ch.  14. 

Jerome  was  cotemporary  with  the  last  named  Fa- 
thers. He  says,  "The  children  of  Christians  arc  not 
themselves,  only,  under  the  guilt  of  sin,  if  they  do  not 
receive  baptism,"  but  "the  wickedness  is  also  imputed 
to  those  w  ho  would  not  give  it  to  them." 

Augustine,  the  most  learned  and  pious  of  the  Fa- 
thers, lived  about  310  years  after  the  Apostles,  A.  D. 
410,  till  the  fifth  century.     He  had  to  contend  with 


53 

the  famous  heretic,  Pelagias,  and  both  before  his  con- 
troversy, and  during  its  continuance,  he  speaks  deci-^ 
dedly  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  saying,  ''The  custom 
of  our  mother,  the  church,  in  baptizing  infants,  must 
not  be  disregarded,  nor  be  accounted  needless,  nor  be- 
lieved to  be  any  thing  else  than  an  ordinance  delivered 
to  us  hy  the  Apostles.  If  any  one  asks  for  divine  author- 
ity in  this  matter,  although  that  which  the  whole  church 
practices,  which  was  not  instituted  by  councils  but  was 
ever  in  use,  is  very  reasonably  believed  to  be  no  other 
than  a  thing  delivered  by  the  authority  of  the  Apos- 
tles; yet  we  may,  besides  this,  take  a  truQ  estimate, 
how  much  the  sacram.ent  of  baptism  does  avail  infants, 
hy  the  circumcision  which  God's  ancient  people  re- 
ceived." Again:  "The  whole  body  of  the  church 
holds,  as  delivered  to  them,  in  the  case  of  little  infants 
baptized,  who  certainly  cannot  beheve  with  the  heart 
unto  righteousness,  nor  confess  with  the  mouth  unto 
salvation;  nay,  by  their  crying  and  noise,  while  the  sa- 
rra.mcnt  is  administered,  they  disturb  the  holy  myste- 
ries; and  yet,  no  Christian  man  will  say  that  they  are 
baptized  to  no  purpose.''  Once  more,  he  says,  ''/  do 
not  remember  that  I  ever  heard  any  other  thing  (than  In- 
fant Baptism)  from  any  Christiein  that  received  the  Old 
and  Xeio  Testaments;  neither  from  such  as  zvere  of  the 
Catholic  Churchy  nor  from  such  as  belong  to  any  sect  or 
schism.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  read  otherivise  in 
any  rcriter^  that  I  could  find  treating  of  these  matters, 
v>ho  followed  the  canonical  scriptures  or  pretended  to 
do  so,  i.  e.  to  say  that  infants  are  not  baptized  for  that 
reason,  viz: — for  the  remission  of  sins."  Thus  the  most 
learned  man  of  all  antiquity  says,  he  never  heard,  nor 


read  of,  nor  saw  a  man,  nor  sect  of  people^  that  ever 
denied  Infant  Baptism*^ Wall,  ch*  15, 16* 

Pelagius  and  Celestius  were  accused  of  denying  it, 
but  they  repel  the  charge  as  an  infamous  slander.  The 
former  says : — "Men  slander  me,  as  if  I  denied  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  to  infants*  Inever  heard  of  any,  not  even 
the  most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  iyfants. 
For,  zvho  can  be  so  impious  as  to  hinder  inf ants  from  being 
baptized  and  born  again  in  Christ,  and  so  make  them 
miss  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  So,  Pelagius,  in  his 
celebrated  creed  to  Innocent,  has  this  article: — "^'c 
hold  one  baptism,  which  we  say  ought  to  be  administered 
zvith  the  same  sacramental  words  to  infants,  as  it  is  to  el- 
der 2^crso7is.^^ — Wall,  ch.  19.  So,  Celestius,  in  his 
creed,  says: — We  own  that  infants  ought,  according  to  the 
rule  of  the  universal  church,  and  according  to  the  sentence 
of  the  gospel,  to  be  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  be- 
cause our  Lord  has  determined  that  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  cannot  be  confered  upon  unbaptized  persons." 
Then,  Pelagius,  v^^ho  was  born  in  England,  and  had 
travelled  very  extensively,  had  never  heard  of  any — 
not  even  an  impious  heretic — who  denied  Infant  Bap- 
tism. 

Tlius,  we  have  given  a  regular  chain  of  evidence, 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  down  to  Augustine  in 
the  5th  century,  and  there  is  no  flaw  in  the  links. 

Now,  mark  one  thing — that  during  these  first  four 
centuries,  the  catalogues  of  all  sects  of  Christians  were 
carefully  written  by  Irenius,  Epiphanius,  Philostratus, 
Augustine  and  Theodoret,  and  these  accounts  are  still 
extant.  In  these  catalogues,  the  differences  of  opin- 
ion which  obtained  in  those  days  respecting  baptism 


55 

are  particularly  recounted  and  minutely  designated. 
Some  sects  are  mentioned  which  made  no  use  of  water 
baptism  at  all.  And,  the  different  ways  in  which  bap- 
tism was  administered  by  different  sects  are  distinctly 
described,  yet  there  is  no  mention  of  any,  not  even  one, 
except  such  as  denied  all  water  baptism  whatever,  who 
did  not  consider  Infant  Baptism  as  a  divine  institution. 
So  that  it  was  universal  in  the  church  for  four  hundred 
years  after  Christ.  And  we  need  go  no  farther  with 
these  proofs — for,  during  the  next  seven  hundred  years 
the  matter  is  clear,  says  Wall,  ch.  22,  or  till  the  year 
1150 — when  the  Petrobrusians,  denying  that  infants 
go  to  heaven  at  all  or  were  "incapable  of  salvation,-' 
also  denied  Infant  Baptism — but  they  soon  died  away, 
and  we  hear  no  more  of  its  denial  till  after  the  Refor- 
mation, or  till  1522. 

These  facts  shall  be  shown  in  our  next  Letter. 


Letter  viii. 

HISTORY  OF    INFANT    BAPTISM    FROM    AUGUSTINE    TO 
THE    RISE    OF    ANABAPTISM,    MDXXII. 

That  Infant  Baptism  did  universally  prevail  in 
the  church,  from  the  fourth  during  all  following  ages 
till  the  eleventh  century,  all  the  intelligent  Anti-pa^do- 
baptists  admit.  The  most  celebrated  of  their  writers, 
Mr.  Tombes,  says; — 

"The  authority  of  Augustine  carried  the  baptism  of 
infants  in  all  the  following  ages,  almost  without  control.'' 

And  all  the  writers  of  those  times,  refered  to  by  Dr. 
Wall,  ch.  22,  speak  of  Infant  Baptism  as  a  thing  un- 
controverted,  and  in  general  use.  In  1050,  in  a  letter 
written  by  Deodwins,  of  Liege,  to  Henry  I,  King  of 
France,  it  is  said: — 

"There  is  a  report,  come  out  of  France  and  v/hich 
goes  through  all  Germany,  that  these  two  (Bruno  and 
Berengarius  of  Angers)  do  mention  that  the  Lord^s 
body  the  host  is  not  the  body,  but  a  shadow  and  figure 
of  the  Lord's  body.  And  that  they  disannul  lawful 
marriages,  and  as  far  as  they  can,  or  in  them  lies,  over- 
throw the  Baptism  of  Infants." 

But  we  never  hear  of  Bruno  again.  And  Gaitmand, 
who  wrote  against  Berengarius,  says: — 

'Berengarius,  finding  his  two  opinions  of  marriage 
and  baptism  would  not  be  endured  by  the  cars  of  even 
the  worst  of  men  that  were,  and  that  there  was  no 
pretence  in  Scripture  for  them,  betook  himself  wholly 
to  the  other,"  [viz:  that  against  transubstantiation.] 
And  thus  continued. 


57 

In  the  twelfth  century,  the  Waldenses  and  Albigen- 
ses  began  to  appear  in  the  northern  part  of  Italy  and 
the  Alps.— The  Enghsh  called  them  by  the  general 
name  of  Waldenses,  from  Waldus,  1130,  and  in  the 
south  of  France,  they  were  called  Albigenses.  There 
were  many  others  of  less  note,  who  have  been  very  im- 
properly and  confusedly  blended,  of  late,  with  then). 
The  present  descendants  of  these  true  Waldenses,  who 
n©w  live  in  Piedmont,  practice  Infant  Baptism,  and 
declare  that  their  ancestors  did  the  same  in  "all  past 
time."  But,  to  begin  at  the  first.  Wickliffe  was  the 
first  of  all  these  people,  and  the  opposers  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism claim  him  cis  a  Baptist.  But,  that  he  and  all  his 
followers,  likewise,  did  believe  in  and  teach  Infant 
Baptism,  I  shall  now  show.     In  1155,  he  says: — 

"When  an  infant  is  brought  to  church,  that,  accor- 
cording  to  Christ's  rule,  he  may  be  baptized,  and  the 
water  is  wanting,  and  the  people's  intention  being 
good,  he  dies,  in  the  meanwhile,  without  Baptism, 
naturally,  by  the  will  of  God,  it  seems  hard  to  define, 
positively,  the  damnation  of  such  an  infant."  Again: 
"But  we  hold  it  to  be  without  doubt  that  infants, 
which- are  rightly  baptized  with  water,  are  baptized 
with  the  third  baptism,  also,  when  as  they  have  the 
baptismal  grace." 

Then,  he  teaches  Infant  Baptism  to  be  "according 
to  Christ's  rule,  or  command."  Can  any  one  question 
this?  But,  when  the  council  of  Constance,  in  1315, 
drew  up  against  him  45  articles  of  heresy^  they  do  not 
charge  him  with  denying  Infant  Baptism.  And  is  it 
reasonable  to  suppose  they  would  have  let  such  a  de- 
nial pass  without  condemning  it? 


58 

Wickliife's  disciples  practiced  Infant  Baptism.  Fox 
cites  a  declaration  of  faith,  drawn  up  by  Walter  Brute, 
a  scholar  of  WicklifFe,  examined  before  the  Bishop  of 
Hereford  in  1393,  which  says: — 

"I  greatly  marvel  at  that  saying  of  the  decrees,  as- 
cribed to  Austin,  that  little  children  that  are  not  bap- 
tized shall  be  tormented  with  eternal  fire,  though  born 
of  faithful  parents  who  wished  them,  with  all  their 
hearts,  to  have  been  baptized.  How  shall  the  infant 
be  damned,  that  is  born  of  faithful  parents  who  do  not 
despise,  but  rather  wish  or  desire  to  have  their  chil- 
dren baptized,"  &c.,  if  they  can. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Hussites,  in  Bohemia,  and 
the  Lollards,  who  believed  that  though  baptism  was 
important  and  to  be  given  to  children,  yet  it  was  not 
essential  to  salvation,  as  the  CathoHc  church  taught — 
that  God  would  accept  the  desire  and  wish  of  those 
believing  parents,  who  could  not  get  their  children 
baptized,  for  the  deed.  That  all  the  real  Waldenses 
baptized  infants,  is  most  evident  to  all  who  will  read 
the  following  language  from  their  creeds  and  their 
own  histories.     Their  confession  says: — 

"We  believe,  also,  that  no  person  is  saved,  but  what 
is  baptized;  and  that  infants  are  saved  by  baptism," 
and  "we  bring  our  children  to  baptism,  which  they 
ought  to  do,  to  whom  they  arc  most  nearly  related, 
such  as  their  parents." 

The  Catholic  church  charged  them  with  the  neglect 
or  denial  of  Infant  Baptism;  but  they  repel  the  charge 
as  untrue,  and  Perrin,  their  Historian,  gives  the  rea- 
sons, thus;  lib.  1,  ch.  4: — 

"That  their  ancestors,  being  constrained,  for  some 


50 

hundreds  of  years,  to  suffer  their  childcen  to  be  bap- 
tized by  the  Romish  priests,  defered  the  performance 
as  long  as  they  could  because  they  detested  the  human 
inventions  annexed  to  it,  which  they  looked  upon  as  so 
many  pollutions  of  it.  And,  because  their  own  pastors 
were  many  times  abroad,  employed  in  the  service  of 
the  churches,  they  could  not  have  baptism  administer- 
ed to  their  infants  by  their  own  ministers,  which,  the 
priests  perceiving,  charged  them  with  this  slander.  To 
which  charge,  not  only  their  adversaries  have  given 
credit,  but  also  many  of  those  who  have  approved  of 
their  lives  and  faith  in  all  other  respects." — Wall,  ch. 
7.     They  then  say: — 

"Baptism  is  administered,  in  a  full  congregation  of 
the  faithful,  to  the  end  that  he  that  is  received  into  the 
church  may  be  reputed  and  held  of  all  as  a  Christian 
brother,  and,  that  all  the  congregation  may  pray  for 
him,  that  he  may  be  a  Christian  in  heart,  as  he  is  out- 
wardly esteemed  to  be  a  Christian.  And,  for  this  cause 
it  is,  that  we  bring  our  children  in  baptism." 

Soon  after  the  Reformation,  these  same  people  sought 
intercourse  with  Luther  and  the  reformed  churches  of 
Geneva  and  France;  held  communion  with  them,  re- 
ceived ministers  from  them,  and  showed  the  greatest 
affection  for  them,  as  ''Christian  brethren."  Now,  all 
know  that  the  churches  of  Geneva  and  France  always 
practiced  Infant  Baptism.  And  when  Luther  sent  to 
know  "the  state  and  doctrine"  of  the  Waldenses,  they 
were  found  in  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  they 
say,  their  "fathers  never  practiced  otherwise,"  and  show 
the  proof  from  an  old  book  called  "the  spiritual  Alma- 
nac."— Perrin,  lib.  1,  ch.  4,     This  same  author  says^ 


60 

page  31,  speaking  of  the  inquisitors  whom  King  Lewis 
XII  sent  to  spy  out  the  crimes  of  the  Waldenses: — 

"They  visited  all  their  paiishes  and  temples,  and 
found  neither  images  nor  the  least  shadow  of  ornaments 
belonging  to  the  masses  aVid  ceremonies  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  much  less  any  such  crimes  as  v,  ere  charged 
upon  them.  But  rather,  that  they  kept  the  Sabbaths 
holy,  causing  their  children  to  he  baptized^  according  to 
the  order  of  the  primitive  church,  teaching  them  tlie 
articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  the  commandments 
of  God." 

Mr.  Jones,  the  Baptist  historian,  page  331 — 8,  pre- 
tends to  quote  this  passage  from  Perrin,  but  leaves  out 
the  baptism  of  their  children  wholly,  saying — ^-They 
observed  the  ordinraice  of  baptism,  according  to  the 
])rimitive  church.''  Can  such  a  writer  be  trusted — 
who  will  thus  suppress  the  truth,  and  misrepresent  an 
author,  to  carry  a  point?  Let  any  one  compare  I^en- 
nard's  London  Edition  of  Perrin,  1021,  with  1st  Ame- 
rican Edition  of  Jones,  an^  they  will  see  a  specimen 
of  the  attempts  to  prove  the  Waldenses,  Baptists,  who 
always  practiced  Infant  Baptism.  The  fact,  that  tlie 
Waldenses  have  ever  practiced  Infant  Baptism,  is  con- 
firmed by  their  descendants  of  the  present  day.  In 
1825,  the  Rev.  S.  E.  Dwight  writes  from  Rome  a  let- 
ter dated  March  12.  Speaking  of  the  Waldenses, 
he  says: — 

*'These  are  the  only  people  that  preser\'ed,  uncor- 
rupted,  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  through 
the  darkness  of  the  middle  ages.  They  inhabit  the 
deep  valleys,  quite  at  the  northern  part  of  Italy,  and 
open  only  to  the  south.    Population  nearly  20,000,  and 


61 

chiefly  resident  in  thirteen  villages.  They  are  a  very 
plain,  industrious  and  pious  people,  bearing  a  very 
strong  resemblance,  in  their  character  and  manners,  to 
the  fathers  of  New  England." 

He  had  letters  of  introduction  to  Rev.  Mr.  Bert, 
one  of  their  godly  ministers,  who  received  him  witli 
great  kindness.  He  attended  a  meeting  with  Mr. 
Bert,  and  was  much  delighted  with  their  honest  sim- 
plicity. In  answer  to  a  question,  Mr.  Bert  said,  that 
'•the  Waldenses  had  always  baptized  their  infants, 
and  had  always  done  it  by  alfusion." 

The  Waldensian  Catechism,  written  A.  D.  1100, 
says:  "There  are  two  sacraments,  one  of  water,  and 
the  other  of  aliment,  i.  e.  of  bread  and  wine.  The 
first  is  called  baptism^  or,  in  our  language,  a  zvashing 
ii:ith  water,  (the  true  definition,)  whether  from  a  river 
or  a  fountain;  and  it  must  be  administered  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  of  the  8on,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Children  are  to  be  presented  for  baptism;  and  this  should 
be  done  by  them  to  whom  they  are  most  nearly  re- 
lated, such  as  parents,"  &c. 

This  language  is  really  just  like  old-feishioned  Pres- 
byterians', and  shows  who  the  Waldenses  really  were. 
It  is,  moreover,  evidence  quite  sufficient  to  satisfy  any 
unprejudiced  mind  of  the  practice  of  the  Waldenses, 
in  relation  to  Infant  Baptism. 

That  Peter  Bruce,  and  the  Pctrobrusians,  who  have 
been  called  a  sect  of  the  Albigenses,  did  deny  Infant 
Baptism,  is  certainly  true,  and  that  this  has  led  some 
to  think  that  all  the  Waldenses  did  the  same,  may  be 
possible.  But  a  very  little  attention  to  their  history 
will  show  all  their  mistakes.     In  the  year  1 140,  Ever- 


vines  mentions  them  in  a  letter  to  St.  Bernard,  say- 
ing:— 

"They  do  not  believe  Infant  Baptism.  All  marriage 
they  call  fornication;"  and  in  1146,  Peter,  Abbot  of 
Clugny,  writes  against  Peter  de  Bruis  and  his  disciples^ 
charging  them  with  six  errors. 

1.  The  denial  of  Infant  Baptism. 

2.  No  churches  should  be  built,  but  all  pulled  down. 

3.  Crosses  ought  not  to  be  worshiped. 

4.  That  the  sacrament  is  no  more  to  be  administered, 
since  Christ's  time. 

5.  That  prayers  cannot  benefit  the  dead. 

6.  That  it  is  a  mocking  of  God  to  sing  in  the 
church. 

They,  also,  he  says,  renounced  all  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  all  the  New,  likewise,  but  the  Gospels.  St. 
Bernard  mentions  many  other  errors  among  them, 
while  he  confirms  the  above — "That  infants  could  not 
go  to  heaven,  because  incapable  of  faith  and  repent- 
ance, they  also  held."  But  none  of  these  writers  ever 
called  them  by  the  name  of  Waldenses.  And  the  Lat- 
eran  Council,  under  Pope  Innocent  II — 1139 — did 
condemn  Peter  Bruis  and  his  follower,  Arnold  of  Bres- 
cia, for  denying  Infant  Baptism.  There  were,  also, 
some  others  who  denied  all  water  baptism,  and  held 
the  baptism  of  fire  and  spirit,  as  the  Quakers  may  ful- 
ly claim. — See  Wall,  part  2,  ch.  7.  So  that  we  con- 
clude, that  no  sect  of  the  Waldenses  ever  did  deny 
Infant  Baptism;  but,  that  the  Petrobrusians,  also  called 
Henricians,  were  the  only  people  that  ever  did,  till 
after  the  Reformation.  If  the  Anabaptists,  who  com- 
menced in  Germany  in  1522,  and  their  followers  think 


proper  to  reject  Infant  Baptism  for  the  same  reason, 
they  (the  Petrobrusians)  did,  let  them  be  as  consistent, 
and  say,  "Infants  are  incapable  of  salvation,  because 
they  cannot  believe,"  and  because  Christ  says,  "he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned," 


t^ 


LETTER  IX. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  THE  ONLY  TRUE  BAPTISM;  ALL  CHURCH- 
ES   DEPENDANT    ON  IT  FOR    THE  VALIDITY  OF  THEIR 
baptism;    3IUNZER,  BLOUNT,    ROGER  WILLIAMS. 

Many  Anti-paedobaptists  say,  Infant  Baptism  came 
into  the  church  after  Cyprian,  in  the  third  century. — 
Mr.  Robinson  tells  us,  page  291,  "when  adult  bap- 
tism fell  into  disuse,"  but  gives  no  proof,  save  his  own 
assertion.     Then,  page  309,  he  tells  us: — 

"Baptism  rose  pure  in  the  east;  it  rolled  westward, 
diminished  in  lustre,  often  beclouded  with  mists,  and 
sometimes  under  a  total  eclipse;  at  length  it  escaped 
the  eye,  and  was  lost  among  attenuated  particles, 
shades,  non-entities  and  monsters." 

This  is  the  sublime  account  of  the  chief  Baptist. 
Baptists,  generally,  agree  with  him,  that  adult  baptism 
ceased,  altogether,  in  the  third  or  fourth  century.  They 
also  declare  Infant  Baptism  to  be  no  baptism  at  all, 
and  d^^^l^re  such  churches,  as  baptize  infants,  no 
churches.  Then  mark  the  argument,  that  in  about 
one  hundred  years  after  the  Apostles,  when  adult  bap- 
tism ceased,  baptism  was  lost,  and  Christ  had  no  church 
on  earth.  So,  from  the  beginning  of  the  third  to  the  six- 
teenth century,  a  period  of  thirteen  hundred  years, 
there  was  no  visible  church  of  God  on  earth.  This  is 
the  dilemma  into  which  their  own  arguments  throw 
them  who  deny  Infant  Baptism.  But  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  itself,  was  thus  irrecoverably  lost,  unless  it  be 
restored  by  a  miracle.  And  then,  if  none  but  baptized 
persons  are  capable  of  administering  baptism,  there  is 


05 

no  true  baptism  now  in  the  world.  Is  this  true  ?  Is  it 
possible,  that  God  would  permit  one  of  the  ordinances 
of  his  house  to  be  wholly  lost,  and  suffer  his  church  to 
die  out  from  the  earth  for  ages?  Is  it  not  quite  as  pos- 
sible, that  Anti-paedobaptists  may  be  wrong,  and  the 
Baptism  of  Infants  right  and  Scriptural? 

It  is  not  possible  to  trace  up  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, in  the  Christian  church,  any  other  way  than 
through  Infant  Baptism.  No  man  can  tell  me  of  a 
church,  now  in  existence,  that  did  not  obtain  baptism,, 
and  their  ministry  to  baptize,  through  the  line  of  In- 
fant Baptism.  The  Baptists  deny  it.  So,  we  will  try 
to  see,  if  we  can  find  a  suceession  of  adult  baptisms. 

x\fter  Constantine,  all  the  world  were  Catholics,  that 
belonged  to  the  true  church,  and  that  church  always 
baptized  infants;  after  the  schism,  and  the  Greek  church 
left  the  Catholic,  still  the  Greeks  all  baptized  infants; 
thus  all  the  world  did,  till  the  Reformation,  save  Peter 
Bruce,  and  as  none  will  claim  him,  we  leave  him  out* 

In  1522,  soon  after  Luther  commenced  the  Refor- 
mation in  Saxony,  there  arose  some  men  who  wished 
to  refine  upon  him.  'K>ne  Nicho^las  Storch,  Thomas 
Munzer,  and  Baltazar  Hobmeier,  began  to  preach  that 
the  baptism  of  infants  was  also  an  abuse  that  must  be 
reformed,  and  began  to  baptize  over  again  such  as  be- 
rame  their  disciples."^ — Wall,  ch.  8,  part  2.  This 
Munzer  called  himself  "the  sword  of  the  Lord  of  Gi- 
deon." At  last,  in  1534,  they  became  a  strong  party^ 
mostly  from  Holland,  with  John  Beeold,  of  Leyden,  for 
their  King;  they  seized  the  city  of  Munzer  and  kept  it 
for  a  time.  All  will  remember  their  history.  These 
were  the  first  Anti-paedobaptists,  or  Anabaptists.  This, 


«6 

is  Hhe  spring-head  of  it.'  The  question  is,  where  did 
they  get  any  authority  to  baptize  infants  or  adults? 
If  they  were  baptized  at  all,  it  was  in  their  infancy  5 
but  Infant  Baptism  is  no  baptism,  say  our  opponents. 
Then,  the  very  first  Baptist  preachers  in  the  world 
were  either  baptized  in  infancy,  or  not  baptized  at  all. 
Can  an  unbaptized  person  give  lawful  and  valid  bap- 
tism? But  try  again:  in  England,  when  Mr.  Jessey, 
an  Episcopal  minister,  turned  Baptist,  and  with  hini 
many  of  his  friends  who  believed  in  immersion  and  in 
baptizing  only  believers,  Neal  (Vol.  3,  page  347,)  says ; 
^•But  as  this  (immersion)  was  not  practiced  in  England, 
they  were  at  a  loss  for  an  administrator,  to  begin 
the  practice.  After  often  meeting  together,  to  pray 
and  confer  about  the  matter,  they  agreed  to  send  over 
to  Holland,  Mr.  Richard  Blount,  to  a  Baptist  church 
there.  He  was  kindly  received  by  the  society  and 
their  pastor,"  was  immersed,  and  returned,  "and  upon 
his  return  he  baptized,  or  rather  immersed,  Mr.  Samu- 
el Blacklock,  a  minister — these  two  immersed  the  rest 
of  the  company,  to  the  number  of  53."  This  was  the 
first  Baptist  church  in  England,  in  1650.  But  where 
did  they  get  their  baptism?  from  Holland,  through 
Munzer,  who  was  not  baptized  at  all,  or  in  his  infancy? 
No,  Messrs.  Jessey,  Blount,  and  Blacklock  were  all 
baptized  in  infancy,  and  that  made  it  good. 

But  once  more,  let  us  turn  to  America;  as  they  have 
improved  in  government,  may  they  not  also  in  religion? 
Roger  Williams  was  a  settled  Pa^.dobaptist  minister,  in 
Salem,  Mass.,  but  for  peculiar  circumstances  he  left 
iliat  colony,  and  went  to  Providence,  Rhode  Island, 
^nd  took  witli  him  eleven  of  his  members:  there  they 


67 

became  Anabaptists.  (See  Clinton's  History,  p.  I;j9.) 
Ezekiel  Holyman,  a  layman,  baptized  in  his  infancy  by 
yprinkling,  immersed  Mr.  Williams,  and  then  Mr.  Will- 
iams immersed  Mr.  Ilolyman  and  the  other  ten  per- 
sons. Thus  was  formed  the  first  Baptist  church  in 
America,  and  as  all  the  churches  in  this  country  cam<' 
or  received  their  baptism  or  immersion,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, from  this  mother  church,  it  is  a  question  of  some 
importance  to  settle — Have  they  any  valid  baptism  at 
all?  If  so,  does  it  not  come  through  Mr.  Williams' 
Infant  Baptism?  But  Infant  Baptism  is  no  baptism  at 
all,  and  churches  that  sprang  from  it  are  no  churches, 
say  Anabaptists;  therefore,  Mr,  Williams'  church,  anrf 
all  the  Baptist  churches,  in  this  country,  that  sprang  fron? 
it,  are  no  churches^  unless  Infant  Baptism  is  the  true  and 
Scnptural  baptism.  But  I  believe  the  Baptist  churche-: 
of  this  country  are  churches  of  Christ,  and,  therelbre,  I 
believe  that  Infant  Baptism  is   true  and   Scnpturiii. 

Then,  we  see,  that  Munzer,  the  first  Anabaptist  in 
Germany,  and  Blount,  the  first  in  England,  and  Roger 
Williams,  the  first  in  America,  were  all  baptized  id 
their  infancy,  if  at  all,  and  that,  therefore,  they  could. 
if  ministers,  give  lawful  baptism^  but  not  lairfd  immersion. 
And,  moreover,  if  Infant  Baptism  be  not  true  baptism. 
there  is  now  no  church  in  the  world,  nor  has  theic 
been  a  church  in  the  world  for  the  last  1600  years. 

But  again:  if  Infant  Baptism  ])e  not  true  and  8cn]>- 
tural,  then  nineteen-twentieths  of  all  the  generations  «>{' 
men  since  Chiist,  who  have  professed  his  religion.  ha\  e 
never  entered  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  died  un- 
baptized;  and  what  has  become  of  them  who  died  in  de- 
liberate disobedience  to  this  command?    ]\foreovor.  f*J 


ont  of  every  50  of  the  Christians,  or  churches,  now  on 
the  earth,  practice  Infant  Baptism,  (as  I  shall  show  in 
my  next,)  and  if  it  be  not  true,  then  the  great  mass  of 
these  churches  are  wrong — are  no  churches  at  all,  and 
must  be  excluded  from  heaven.  But  do  not  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  call  us  brethren,  sometimes,  at  least;  ask 
us  to  preach  with  them,  pray  with  them,  hold  union 
meetings,  &c.?  But  is  it  possible,  that  they  are  so  in- 
consistent.,  as  to  ask  m  to  pray^  or  preach,  c^c,  who  are  not 
baptized,  and  who  do  not  belong  to  the  church  of  Christ,  at 
all?  The  answer  is  found  in  their  practice  of  close 
communion.  They  say,  none  but  baptized  persons 
have  a  right  to  commune;  but  Infant  Baptism,  and 
sprinkling,  are  no  baptism;  therefore,  persons  baptized 
in  infancy,  and  by  sprinkUng,  have  no  right  to  com- 
munion. This  is  their  practice.  Then,  do  they  not, 
for  the  mere  mode  of  a  ceremony,  shutout  from  heaven 
all  Pc^obaptists?  Mark — it  is  not  for  a  neglect  of  it, 
but  for  the  mode  of  the  thing,  we  are  debarred  from 
heaven — not  on  principle,  but  for  a  mere  form  of  an 
ordinance.  Might  it  not,  with  equal  propriety,  be  con- 
tended that  the  mode  of  the  Supper  was  the  Lord^s 
Supper,  and,  unless  you  take  it  in  his  mode,  (viz:  re- 
cUning  as  Christ  did,)  you  cannot  obey  his  command? 
But  did  we  ever  hear  the  mode  of  the  sacrament  made 
the  sacrament,  or  a  sine  qua  non  to  it,  by  any  Protest- 
ants? Then  why  make  the  mode  of  one  ordinance  in  the 
church  so  much  more  essential  than  the  other?  Why  not 
be  consistent,  and  make  the  mode  of  taking  the  sacra- 
ment as  important  as  the  mode  of  baptism?  We  are  con-^ 
sistent,  making  the  mode  of  the  one  just  as  essential  as 
the  other..  But  this  comes  under  the  mode  of  baptism.. 


LETTER  X. 

ALL  CHURCHES  IN    EUROPE,    ASIA,  AFRICA  AND    AMERICA, 
SINCE  THE  RISE  OF  THE  ANABAPTISTS,  DO  NOW  PRAC- 
TICE   INFANT    BAPTISM,    SAVE    THE    BAPTISTS. 

That  the  great  majority  of  Christian  churches,  even 
since  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists,  have  continued  to 
practice  Infant  Baptism,  and  do  now  continue  the  prac- 
tice, is  too  plain  a  matter  to  require  proof.  We  shall 
state  the  facts  which  all  reading  and  intelligent  loen 
know  to  be  true. 

In  Europe  this  is  notorious.  The  Roman  CatlK)lic 
church  not  only  baptize  infants,  but  hold  that  infant*^, 
dying  unbaptized,  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  Heav- 
en, and  there  is  scarcely  an  Anti-paedobaptist  in  that 
whole  church,  which  includes  one  half  of  professing 
Christians.  The  Greek  church  of  Constantinople  and 
all  other  parts  of  Europe  are  known  to  baptize  infant?, 
and  Sir  Paul  Ricaut  gives  (ch.  7)  a  full  account  of  their 
manner  of  baptizing,  and  how  their  ceremonies  differ 
from  the  Latins.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Muscovites, 
who  were  a  part  of  the  Greek  church,  but  now  choose 
their  own  patriarch;  Dr.  Crull  says,  "now  they  baptize 
children  as  soon  as  they  are  born."  Thus  the  largest 
and  oldest  churches  in  the  world  still  continue  Infant 
Baptism  without  exception.  Thus  one  half,  or  two 
thirds,  of  the  world  of  professing  people  act^ 

The  church  of  England  says,  "the  baptism  of  young 
children  is,  in  any  wise,  to  be  retained  in  the  church, 
as  most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ,"  and 
have  always  baptized  Infants.     The  same  is  true  of  all 


70 

Episcopal  churches  throughout  the  world.  That  the 
church  of  Scotland,  and  the  Preshjterians  throughout 
nil  the  world,  have  always,  and  do  still  baptize  chil- 
dren, is  too  well  known  to  need  proof. 

In  Asia,  the  different  Christians,  scattered  under 
various  names,  do  the  same.  The  Armenians  have 
f*Mi.<^tantly  baptized  infants,  as  Ricaut,  ch.  8,  "On  the 
present  state  of  the  Armenian  church,"  shows,  and 
Ileylm  and  Brewood,  likewise.  The  Maronites  bap- 
tize infants,  thus:  "The  males  at  40  days  old,  and  fe- 
males at  80,  according  to  Levit.  12."  The  Christians 
of  St.  Thomas,  who  live  between  the  coasts  of  Mala- 
bar and  Coromandel,  were  wholly  unknown  to  us,  till 
1500,  when  discovered  by  the  Portuguese;  they  were 
then  estimated  at  about  15  or  16,000  famiHes.  "They 
were  found  in  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  wheii 
the  child  was  forty  days  old." — Osorius,  Lib.  3.  About 
one  hundred  years  after  that,  they  were  bro't  over  to 
the  conmiunion  of  the  church  of  Rome,  as  Mr.  Geddes 
shows.  The  practice  of  these  Indian  Christians  fully 
shows  how  mistaken  our  opponents  are,  who  suppose 
Infant  Baptism  commenced  but  recently.  These  Chris- 
tians had  never  even  heard  of  such  a  part  of  the  world 
as  Europe.  So  that,  the  practice  could  not  have  been 
con^municated  to  them  from  that  quarter.  These  peo- 
ple show  Infant  Baptism  to  be  of  very  great  antiquity. 
The  people  of  the  ancient  Iberia,  and  of  Colchis,  now 
railed  Georgia  and  Mungralia,  or  Circassia,  who  were 
converted  in  the  days  of  Constantine,  by  means  of  a 
Servant  maid  who  cured  the  Queen  of  Iberia,  as  related 
l)y  Rufinus  and  Socrates,  held  communion  with  t\\(i 
C^reek  church,  and  practiced  Infant  Baptism,  as  we 


hare  shown  that  church  did.  Sir  John  Chardin  says 
of  them,  page  85 : — 

*'They  anoint  infants  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  in  the 
forehead.  The  baptism  is  not  administered  till  alon^ 
time  after.  No  man  baptizes  his  child,  till  he  has  the 
means  to  make  a  feast  at  the  baptism.  Hence  it  come- 
to  pasSj  that  many  infants  die  without  receiving  bap- 
tism." 

He  was  present  at  two  baptizings — 'One  was  a  little 
boy  of  five  years  old.'  The  same  manuscript,  says 
Wall,  part  1.  ch.  8,  gives  a  full  account,  both  of  the 
Mungralians  and  Georgians,  as  receiving  the  Gospel, 
in  the  4th  century,  and  as  ever  continuing  to  practice 
Infant  Baptism.  Thus  all  Christians  of  Asia,  as  well 
as  of  Europe,  baptize  infants. 

In  Africa  there  are  but  two  sorts  of  Christians,  the 
Cophti,  of  Egypt,  who  are  the  remains  of  the  old  Chris- 
tian church  tiiere — and  the  Abassans.  Both  of  these 
baptize  infants — the  Cophti  none  till  40  days  old.  The 
Abassans,  the  males  at  40,  and  the  females  at  80  days 
after  circumcision,  for  they  use  both.  This  is  plain 
from  all  Historians,  such  as  Brerewood,  Heylyn,  &c. 
Then,  all  Christians  in  Europe,  Asia  and  Africa,  bap- 
tize infants,  except  the  Anabaptists  of  Germany,  and 
some  small  sects  who  have  since  branched  out  from 
them  of  late  years. — See  Dr.  Wail,  part  2,  page  291, 
where  you  will  also  find  an  account  of  Munzer,  and 
others. 

In  America,  all  Christians,  of  all  churches,  except 
the  different  kinds  of  Anabaptists,  have,  from  the  be- 
ginning, practiced  Infant  Baptism,  and  do  so  at  this 
time,  as  the  Methodists,  Episcopalians,  Presbyterian?,, 


72 

tlie  old  and  the  new  side,  as  well  as  the  Cumberlands, 
the  Lutherans,  Dutch  Reformed,  Congregationalists, 
Associate  Reformed,  Seceders,  Covenanters,  and  Rad- 
ical Methodists.  Then  all  Christian  churches,  in  all 
parts  of  the  world,  practice  Infant  Baptism,  except  the 
Anabaptists  and  their  branches,  who  commenced  in 
1522,  under  Munzer.  There  never  was  a  church  be- 
fore him  who  denied  it,  nor  even  a  sect,  but  the  Petro- 
brusians.  So  that,  no  historical  fact  is  plainer  or  bet- 
ter established  than  this,  viz: — That  infant  baptism  has 
been  the  constant  and  universal  practice  of  the  church  of 
Christy  in  all  its  branches^  from  the  Apostles  doivn  to  the 
present  time^  except  the  Petrobrusians  and  different  sects  of 
Anabaptists, 

We  shall  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject,  by  a  re- 
capitulation of  the  points  in  the  preceding  letters.  We 
have  in  these  letters  shown — 

1.  That  Infant  Baptism  was  common  in  the  Jewish 
church  when  Christ  came  and  gave  his  «^ommission, 
taking  it  for  granted,  and  the  practice  perfectly  famil- 
iar to  the  minds  of  his  Apostles,  all  being  Jews,  and 
accustomed  to  proselyte  baptism. 

2.  That  Hhe  Acts  of  the  Apostles'  fully  show  that 
the  Apostles  did  give  household  baptism,  as  it  had 
always  been  done  in  the  case  of  proselytes  and  their 
households  when  they  became  Jews;  and  that  'the  Gos- 
pels' fully  declare  that  Christ  received,  laid  his  hands 
on,  and  blessed  infants,  declaring  them  to  be  of,  or  to 
belong  to,  the  gospel  church,  or  'kingdom  of  Heaven,' 
and  was  much  displeased  at  those  who  wislied  to  hinder 
them  from  coming  to  him;  so  that  Christ  did  not  reject, 
but  received  infants,  and  so  commanded  us  to  do. 


73 

3.  That  'the  Epistles'  correspond  with  'the  Gospels 
and  Acts,'  in  showing  baptism  to  be  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision; (Col.  2:  11,  12,)  and  that  the  children  of 
^either  believing  parent,  (I  Cor.  7:  14,)  are  holy,  i,  e. 
fit  subjects  for  baptism.  That  these  two  passages  were 
so  understood  and  expounded  by  all  the  Fathers. 

4.  That  the  only  two  arguments  against  Infant  Bap- 
tism worth  naming^  are  unsound  and  sophistical,  viz: — 
^They  can't  believe  and  repent — there  is  no  express 
command  for  Infant  Baptism.'  [See  them  fully  stated 
in  Letter  Fourth.] 

5.  That  Infant  Baptism  was  practiced  by  all  those 
holy  men  who  lived  immediately  after  the  Apostles, 
-some  cotemporary  with  them,  as  Hermas,  Clement, 
Irenius,  Justin  Martyr,  Turtullian  and  Origen,  i.  e.  for 
150  years,  or  A.  D.  200.     [See  Letter  Fifth.] 

G.  That  Cyprian  and  the  council  of  the  wlioic 
church,  A.  D.  253,  did  declare  what  the  church  had 
always  practiced  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles  in  re- 
lation to  Infant  Baptism,  when  they  decided  the  case 
of  Fidus  as  to  the  day  or  time  of  baptism,  as  stated  in 
letter  6th.  That  there  never  was  a  difficulty  in  the 
church,  about  whether  infants  should  be  baptized — 
no  one  ever  questioned  it  for  a  moment;  but  this  coun- 
cil settled  the  case  as  to  time,  i.  e.  whether  it  should 
be  on  the  eighth  day,  or  on  the  third  or  fourth  day 
after  they  were  born. 

7.  That  from  the  days  of  Cyprian,  253,  down  to  the 
beginning  of  the  5th  century.  Infant  Baptism  is  fully, 
frequently,  and  constantly  spoken  of  by  all  writers  as 
the  general  practice  of  the  churches.  So  says  Opta- 
tus,  Gregory,  Nazianzen,  Basil,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom, 


174 

Augustine,   Pclagius   and   Celestius.      Then   all    tbe 
church,  and  even  all  heretics,  practiced  it. 

8.  That,  for  the  next  seven  hundred  years  after  Au- 
gustine, i.  c.  till  A.  D.  1150,  there  is  no  dispute  about 
it — all  practiced  Infant  Baptism,  no  one  denied  it  till 
Peter  Bruis;  and  he  and  his  followers  soon  died. 

9.  That  Wickliffe,  and  all  the  Waldenses  and  Albi- 
genses,  did  practice  Infant  Baptism,  as  their  creeds  and 
Historians  fully  show.  That  they  united  with  the  re- 
formed diurches  of  Geneva  and  France  who  practiced 
it;  and  that  Luther's  delegation  found  it  in  use  among 
them,  and  so  did  the  Pope's  inquisitors;  and  that  their 
descendants,  who  now  live  in  Italy  and  the  valleys,  do 
practice  Infant  Baptism,  and  say  their  ancestors  always 
did  the  same. 

10.  That  all  Christians  in  Europe,  (England  and 
Scotland  inclusive.)  Asia,  Africa  and  America  do,  at 
this  day,  practice  Infont  Baptism,  except  the  different 
parties  of  Anabaptists.  The  history  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism, then,  is  clear,  and  amounts  to  a  demonstration. 
Dr.  Wall  has  written  it  in  full,  in  2  volumes,  and  Mr. 
Gale  has  attempted  to  reply  to  a  part  of  it.  Let  all, 
who  wish,  read  these  works  as  now  found  together  in 
4  volun:res,  and  they  will  be  fully  satisfied  as  to  this 
matter. 

Permit  me  to  add  a  little  more  evidence,  showing 
the  practice  of  the  Greek  church  of  the  present  day, 
and  of  the  Muscovites.  Our  opponents  are  very  fond  of 
refering  to  the  Greek  church,  as  the  largest  and  oldest 
in  the  world,  as  favoring  immersion ;  but  never  tell,  at 
the  same  time,  that  the  Greeks  all  baptize  their  chil- 
dren.    One  of  their  papers  asks : — 


75 

^Was  immersion  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church  ? 
If  not,  why  docs  the  Greek  church,  to  this  day,  iai' 
merse?"' 

I  would  ask,  was  Infant  Baptism  the  practice  of  the 
ancient  church?  If  not,  why  does  the  Greek  church, 
to  this  day,  practice  Infant  Baptism?  A  gentleman  of 
this  State,  who  travelled  among  the  Greeks,  and  stayed 
some  time  at  Constantinople — a  man  of  great  learning 
and  veracity,  says: — 

"I  resided  upwards  of  three  years  in  the  capitoi  of 
the  Grand  Seigniors  dominions,  in  a  Greek  family  of 
the  first  respectahility.  During  my  stay,  I  was  present 
at  four  baptisms — two  in  the  family,  and  two  in  the 
immediate  neighborhood.  It  is  the  custom  of  the 
Greeks,  either  to  have  their  children  baptized  pubHcly 
in  the  churches,  or  else  in  their  houses;  in  which  latter 
case,  the  parents  invite  the  nearest  relations  and  neigh- 
bors; and  after  the  ceremony,  while  refreshments  are 
passed  round,  the  father  gives  to  each  person  present 
a  token  of  witness-ship,  consisting  of  a  small  piece  of 
Turkish  money,  either  of  one  para  or  ^Yeparas^  through 
which  a  hole  is  pierced,  and  a  piece  of  narrow  ribband 
is  inserted.  I  was  thus  invited  to  attend  the  four  above 
mentioned  baptisms;  and  I  still  have  in  my  possession 
two  tokens, — the  other  two  may  be  seen  in  Mrs.  Mc- 
Dowell's Museum  in  Danville,  Ky.*' 

'•The  company,"  he  continues,  "were  all  seated  in 
the  sofas  round  the  room.  A  table  stood  in  the  middle 
of  the  room,  with  a  basin  of  water  on  it.  The  Papa 
or  priest  was  then  sent  for,  Vrho,  upon  entering  the 
room,  was  received  by  the  father  of  the  infant,  and 
led  to  the  baptismal  water,  which  he  consecrated  with 


76 

a  short  prayer  and  the  sign  of  the  cross;  then  the  moth- 
er presented  to  him  her  babe,  which  he  laid  on  his  left 
arm,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  he  thrice  dipped  his  hand  into  the  water,  and 
dropped  some  of  it  on  the  child's  forehead,  giving  it  a 
name.  I  may  here  remark,  that  I  never  heard,  during 
my  stay  in  Constantinople,  of  adult  baptism,  nor  of  the 
ordinance  being  performed  by  immersion,  in  a  single 
instance.  Most  generally,  infants  are  baptized  in  the 
churches.  Before  the  altar  stands  a  tripod,  holding  a 
basin  of  consecrated  water,  for  baptisms." 

Here  we  find  the  Greek  church  of  our  own  day,  in 
the  good  old  practice  of  the  Apostolic  church,  baptiz- 
ing infants,  and  that  by  sprinkling.  This  church,  says 
the  Magnus  Apollo  for  immersion,  contains  "one  half 
of  the  Christian  world,"  and  this  one  half  baptize  in- 
fants, and  that  by  sprinkling.  But  this  fact  is  still  far-^ 
ther  confirmed,  by  Rev.  Pliny  Fisk,  iate  Missionary  to 
Palestine,  who  says: — 

"I  went,  one  morning,  to  the  Syrian  church,  to  wit- 
ness a  baptism.  When  ready  for  the  baptism,  the  font 
was  uncovered,  and  a  small  quantity,  first  of  warm  wa- 
ter, and  then  of  cold  water,  was  poured  into  it.  The 
child,  in  a  state  of  perfect  nudity,  was  then  taken  by 
the  Bishop,  who  held  it  in  one  hand,  while  with  the 
other  he  annointed  the  whole  body  with  oil.  He  then 
held  the  child  in  the  font,  its  feet  and  legs  being  in 
the  water,  and  with  his  right  hand  he  took  up  water 
and  poured  it  on  the  child,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." — Memoir,  page  357. 

Again:  Mr.  Fisk  says  of  a  learned  Jew  among  the 
Greeks,  page  195: — 


77 

"We  have  often  read  the  Scriptures  together.  After 
reading  the  account  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  I  in- 
quired whether  such  a  thing  as  baptism  was  known 
among  the  Jews.  He  said,  that  in  ancient  times,  when 
a  stranger  embraced  the  Jewish  reUgion,  he  and  his 
wife  and  children  were  all  baptized.  The  ceremony 
was  performed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  a  cup  of  water 
on  the  head,  and  this  was  done  seven  times." 

This  proves  that  children  were  baptized — and  that 
the  mode  was  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The  Russian 
church  had  their  own  Patriarch,  till  Peter  the  Great 
assumed  that  otfice  himself.  In  the  life  of  Peter,  as 
written  by  Barrow,  Family  Library,  No.  65,  p.  1 — 15, 
it  is  said  of  him: — 

"It  was  his  custom,  frequently,  to  visit,  in  their  hum- 
hie  abodes,  his  subjects  of  the  lower  classes — and  he 
never  refused  to  hold  their  little  ones  at  the  baptismal 
font;  a  condescension  for  which  he  had  perpetual  calls, 
from  one  class  or  another  of  his  subjects.  To  the  first 
born  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  his  own  regiment  of 
guards,  he,  almost  always,  was  called  upon  to  stand 
god-father."     The  Empress  Elizabeth  says  of  him: — 

"My  father,  who  stood  sponsor  to  as  many  as  wished, 
and  who  refused  none,  contented  himself  with  kissing 
the  mother,  and  putting  a  ducat  under  the  pillar,  and 
the  parents  were  alt  satisfied." 

Again,  page  228,  it  is  said  of  young  Peter: — 

"This  young  Prince  was,  also,  baptized  (immediate- 
ly after  his  birth)  by  the  name  of  Peter,  with  the  ad- 
junct of  Petrovitz,  the  kings  of  Denmark  and  Prussia 
being  his  god-fathers." 

Thus,  we  find  the  Kings  of  all  these  northern  pow- 


78 

ers  of  Europe,  all  at  one  time,  engaged  in  the  practice 
of  Infant  Baptism,  and  they  still  continue  it,  through- 
out these  Kingdoms.  This  practice  we  also  find  men- 
tioned as  common  in  Prussia,  in  the  days  of  Frederick 
III,  or  the  Great,  and  from  the  earliest  times. — See 
Life  of  Frederick  the  Great.  Thus  we  have  the  most 
conclusive  evidence  that  the  Muscovites,  as  well  as 
Greeks,  still  practice  Infant  Baptism.  And  whenever 
I  hear  a  man  say,  does  not  the  Greek  church  immerse  ? 
I  can't  help  hut  ask  him — but  does  it  not  baptize  in- 
fants? and  if  your  argument  is  good  for  immersion, 
mine  is  still  better  to  prove  Infant  Baptism.  No  man 
ran  deny  that  the  Greeks  and  Muscovites  have  always 
baptized  Infants. 

I  shall  conclude  this  piece,  in  the  words  of  an  able 
and  learned  writer  on  Mark  10:  14: — 

"These  little  children,  whom  you  would  hinder  from 
being  brought  to  me,  for  my  blessing,  are  objects  of 
my  kindest  regard.  They,  and  such  as  they,  stand  in 
a  near  relation  to  my  church.  The  kingdom  which  I 
am  setting  up  is  not  to  overlook  them,  but  to  embrace 
and  cherish  them.  Peculiar  favor  was  shown  to  them 
under  the  former  dispensation.  Think  not,  that  less 
is  to  be  shown  under  my  reign.  Look  not  upon  thenu 
therefore,  with  feelings  of  inditTercnce.  Strive  not  to 
deprive  tliem  of  my  blessing — but  suffer  them  to  come 
unto  me,  yea  bring  them — for  to  such  children  the 
privileges  of  my  church,  oi-  kingdom,  belong." 

This  is  a  true  paraphrase,  llovr  will  those,  who  deny 
Infant  Baptism,  settle  this  passage?  Do  they  not  for- 
bid children  to  come  to  Christ?  Is  he  less  angry  witli 
them,  than  with  his  mistaken  di':riplcs  of  old  ? 


79 

Dr.  Grant,  in  his  account  of  the  Nestorians,  or  lost 
tribes  of  Israel,  says: — 

"On  the  eighth  day  the  child  may  be  baptized,  as 
the  Nestorians  are  of  opinion  that  baptism  comes  in 
the  place  of  circumcision."' — Bib.  Rep.,  Jan.  184*2, 
page  77. 

The  followers  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  in  Mesopota- 
mia, also  baptized  infants.  So  says  the  great  Mission- 
ary, Wolfe,  Vol.  2,  page  311:— 

"They  carry  the  children,  after  thirty  days,  to  the 
liver;  the  Priest  says  a  prayer;  the  god-father  holds 
the  child  near  the  surface  of  the  water,  while  the 
Piiest  sprinkles  the  element  upon  the  child,  giving  it 
a  name." 

This  was  the  account  given  Mr.  Wolfe,  by  their 
CAvn  high  Priest,  in  two  instances.  These  two  church- 
es of  Nestorians  and  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  are  very 
ancient,  and  this  testimony  is  very  conclusive. 

It  also  shows  baptism  in,  or  at  the  river,  and  yet  by 
sprinkling.  This  is  the  mode,  they  say,  St.  John  used. 
For,  when  Mr.  Wolfe  inquired  why  they  went  to  the 
river  to  sprinkle  or  baptize,  they  answered — 

"Because  St.  John  the  Baptist  baptized  in  the  river 
Jordan."  Of  course  it  was  by  sprinkling.  One  thing 
may  be  here  remarked — once  for  all — that  Infant  Bap- 
tism, and  pouringor  sprinkling,  have  generally  gone  to- 
gether, and  vv^hcre  you  find  the  one,  you  do  the  other; 
on  the  otlicr  hand,  nearly  all,  who  immerse,  refuse  bap- 
tism to  Infants.  Keep  this  in  view,  and  you  may  see 
the  mode  of  baptism,  in  all  past  ages,  from  the  lii^^torv 
of  Infant  Baptism.     Still  there  are  exceptions. 


PART  SECOND. 


THE  mODE  OF  BAPXISifl. 


LETTER  XI, 

THE  QUESTION  STATED KING    JAMEs'  VERSION BAPTIZO 

NOT  A  WORD  OF   MODE. 

There  are  two  modes  of  Baptism.  The  one  is  ap- 
plying water  to  the  persofi,  by  pouring  or  sprinkfing^? 
(they  are  really  the  same) — the  other  is  applying  the  per- 
son to  the  water^  or  putting  him  into  or  under  the  water, 
called  immersion.  The  Bible  always  speaks  of  the 
former.^  but  never  of  the  latter  mode,  as  we  shall  see  in 
due  time.  There  are  four  elements  or  essentials,  all 
necessary  to  Christian  baptism* 

1.  A  proper  subject. 

it»  The  use  of  the  sacred  form  of  words,  "In  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

3.  A  regularly  authorized  minister  of  the  GospeL 

1.  The  use  of  water  as  the  liquid  applied,  called 
the  seal. 

Where  either  of  these  are  wanting,  there  can  be  no 
Christian  baptism.  The  mode  of  applying  the  water 
is  not  one  of  the  essential  elements  in  Baptism  much 
less  is  the  mK)de  of  the  thing,  the  thing  itself.  The  im- 
mersionist  generally  assumes  too  much,  when  he  •say  s^ 
^AU  admit  our  mode  to  be  scriptural,  and  if  you  do 
that  much,  it  is  aM  we  ask."  But  I  say,  we  do  not  admit 
imm,ersion  to  be  the  Scriptural  mode  of  Baptism;  wc  fully 
and  unequivocally  deny  that  it  is  taught  in  the  Bible;  and 


81 

it  IS  not  because  of  the  mode^  that  we  receive  a  person 
who  has  been  immersed  as  baptized,  without  baptizing 
him  over,  but  because  he  has  the  four  essentials  above 
named  independent  of  his  immersion,  which  act  of  su- 
pererogation does  not  destroy  his  baptism.  When  a 
gentleman  repKed  to  this  the  other  day,  he  said,  "Well, 
if  I  have  all  the  essentials  of  a  Jiorse^  or  the  elements  of 
a  coat^  I  have  a  horse,  or  a  coat,  and  what  more  do  I 
want?  So  of  immersion,'''^  But  why  did  he  not  say, 
the  colour  of  the  horse,  and  the  shape,  cut,  or  colour  of 
the  coat,  was  essential  to  the  coat,  or  horse.  Why 
not  say,  if  your  horse  and  coat  are  not  zcater-colour, 
they  are  neither  horse  nor  coat.  The  colour  of  the  coat 
is  the  coat;  the  colour  of  the  horse  is  the  horse;  and 
unless  the  horse  and  coat  are  of  ofie  peculiar  colour  they 
cease  to  be  either.  Is  the  colour  all  that  is  essential 
in  a  horse  or  coat?  So,  is  immersion,  the  mere  mode, 
all  that  is  essential  to  true  baptism?  "Yes,"  says  the 
advocate  of  it,  "you  may  have  all  the  four  things,  a 
true  subject,  the  name  of  the  trinity,  a  true  minister, 
and  water  applied  to  the  person,  but  if  it  is  not  immer- 
sion it  is  no  baptism — immersion  alone  is  baptismJ'''  Then 
we  may  as  well  say  that  colour  alone  is  a  horse  or  coat. 
I  had  thought  that  colour  was  but  an  accident  in  such 
cases,  and  that  a  horse  might  exist  either  as  white,  or 
black,  or  gray;  so  might  not  a  coat  be  of  various  modes 
or  shapes,  and  other  colours  besides  water-colour?  Am 
I  mistaken?  Or  is  the  mistake  in  the  immersionist'l 
The  mode  of  baptism  has,  within  the  last  few  hundred 
years,  become,  in  the  estimation  of  some,  every  thing 
— a  sine  qua  non  to  it.  It  shuts  men  even  out  of  heav- 
en for  want  of  it.     My  neighbour  says  to  me,   "you 

6 


S'2 

caiiH  commune  with  us."  "Why/"'  I  ask.  ^'Because 
you  are  not  baptized,"  he  replies.  "But  have  I  not 
had  water  appHed  to  me,  in  the  name  of  the  trinity,  by 
a  regular  minister."  "Yes,  but  you  have  not  been  im- 
tnersed,  and  nothing  else  is  baptism."  Is  not  this  really 
making  the  m.ere  7node  the  whole  thing,  and  erecting 
a  barrier  between  all  other  Christians  and  heaven?  Is 
this  charitable?  Is  it  kind?  Is  it  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel?  Then  we  are  here  on  the  defensive  again, 
and  the  question  for  discussion  is  simply  this: 

Is  immersion  essential  to  Christian  Baptism?  Immer- 
sionists  say  it  is — we  say  it  is  not.  They  must  prove 
that  baptism  never  was,  nor  can  be  administered  in 
any  other  way.  The  point  to  be  decided,  then,  is  a 
very  plain  one,  but  the  burden  of  proof  that  lies  upon 
our  opponents  is  most  diflicult,  not  to  say  impossible  or 
insupportable. 

Is  it  not  somewhat  remakable,  that  the  mode  of  one 
ordinance  of  Religion  should  be  made  so  much  more 
essential  than  that  of  the  other.  No  one  pretends  that 
the  MODE  or  manner  of  taking  the  Lord's  Supper  is  so 
essential  to  it,  as  that  none  can  obey  this  last  command 
of  Christ,  unless  in  a  particular  posture.  Yet  the  mode 
of  Baptism,  with  many,  is  a  sine  qua  non  to  the  ordi- 
nance, and  thus  they  make  the  mode  of  the  thing,  the 
thing  itself,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  absurd. 
While  we  fully  reject  the  idea  of  the  mode  being  ess*ii- 
!:al  to  Baptism,  still  we  believe,  that  whatever  mode  is 
laught  in  the  word  of  God  should  be  strictly  observed 
by  all  Christians.  Many  good  people  beUeve  that  the 
\Vib\c  teaches  immersion  to  be  the  only  proper  mode 
of  Baptism;  but  the  great  majority  of  the  Christian 


83 

world  believe  sprinkling  or  pouring  to  be  the  proper 
mode*  Those  who  believe  in  immersion  take  their 
stand  on  the  meaning  of  the  original  word  haptizo^ 
which,  they  say,  is  a  word  of  3iode — never  signifying 
any  thing  but  mode.  Mr.  Carson,  p.  79,  says,  "/f/y 
position  is,  that  it  ahuays  signifies  to  dip;  never  eocpressing 
any  thing  hut  mode,  jA'ozy,  as  I  have  cdl  the  lexicograph- 
ers and  commentators  against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  idll  be 
necessary  to  say  a  zcord  or  tzco  zvith  respect  to  the  authoriiy 
of  Lexicons.''^  The  celebrated  Mv,  Gale  takes  about 
the  same  position.  So  does  Mr.  Campbell.  They 
say  that  baptizo  should  always  be  translated  by  the 
word  immerse;  that  the  word  baptize  is  no  translation 
at  all,  as  it  is  only  an  English  verb  formed  from  the 
Greek  baptizo. 

And  pray  what  is  immerse,  but  an  English  word 
formed  from  the  Latin  verb,  immcrgo  ?  Is  it  not  strange 
that  such  intelhgent  men  attempt  to  blind  the  eyes  of 
common  readers  by  such  evasions?  Is  it  not  as  good 
English  to  say  baptize  as  to  say  immerse?  and  is  it  not 
as  true  that  the  word,  baptize,  is  the  literal,  true 
translation  of  the  Greek  word  baptizo,  as  that  immerse 
is  the  literal  of  immcrgo  ?  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  not  true  that  to  immerse  is  the  true,  literal  transla- 
tion of  the  word  baptizo.  There  are  but  two  words  in 
our  language  that  express  the  literal  meaning  of  bapti- 
zo— viz:  Baptize  and  Wash.  And  the  word  baptizo  is 
translated,  in  every  instance  in  the  ^Ycz«  Testament,  by  one 
of  these  zvords,  and  never,  in  a  solitary  instance,  by  the 
Latin  word  immerse.  Is  it  reasonable  that  the  transla- 
tors of  the  Bible  would  have  been  so  very  careful  as 
never,  in  one  instance,  to  have  given  baptizo  its  true 


84' 

meanings  if  it  always  signifies  to  immerse?  Can  any 
man  in  his  senses  believe,  that  47  of  the  most  learned 
men  in  England,  would  have  rendered  the  Greek 
verb  haptizo^  by  the  word  baptize  or  wash,  in  every 
instance  in  the  Bible,  (one  hundred  times,)  and  never 
have  given  it  its  true  signification  one  time,  and  yet 
knew  it  to  be  a  word  signifying  "to  dip,  never  express- 
ing any  thing  but  mode  ?"     Credat  Judceiis,  non  ego. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  and  others  say — "King  Jam.es 
would  not  let  them  translate  it."  But  still  they  say  im- 
mrrsion  was  in  the  church  till  after  his  day.  To  show 
how  false  this  assertion  is,  I  will  give  you  King  James' 
own  instructions  to  these  translators,  and  you  may 
judge  for  yourself. — In  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans, 
vol.  1,  page  453,  we  read  as  follows: 

"King  James  appointed  anew  translation  of  the  Bi- 
ble, to  be  executed  by  the  most  learned  men  of  botli 
Universities  under  the  following  regulations: 

1.  That  they  keep  as  close  as  possible  to  the  Bish- 
ops' Bible. 

2.  That  the  names  of  the  holy  writers  be  retained 
according  to  vulgar  use* 

3.  That  the  old  ecclesiastical  words  be  kept;  as 
CHURCH,  not  to  translate  congregation,  &c. 

4.  That  when  a  word  has  divers  signijications^  that 
be  kept  which  has  been  most  commonly  used  by  the  Fa- 
thers!! 

5.  That  the  division  of  chapters  be  not  altered. 

6.  No  marginal  notes,  but  for  the  explication  of 
Greek  or  Hebrew  words. 

7.  Marginal  references  may  be  set  down. 

The  other  regulations  relate  to  the  translators  com^ 


85 

paring  notes,  and  agreeing  among  themseives.  They 
were  to  consult  the  modern  translations  of  the  Frencli, 
Dutch,  German,  &:c.;as  Tyndall,  Matthew,  Coverdale, 
Whitchurch,  and  Geneva.  The  commission  is  dated 
1604;  the  work  was  not  begun  till  1006,  and  finished 
and  printed  in  1611,  after  being  revised  by  Bishop 
Bilson  and  Dr.  Miles  Smith,  who  wrote  the  preface." 

These  are  the  rules  of  King  James,  and  the  fourth 
■one,  if  any,  applies  to  the  use  of  words  like  haptizo. 
Now  will  our  opponents  admit  that  these  m,en  followed 
the  Fathers  stnctli/,  in  always  translating  haptizo  to 
WASH  or  to  BAPTIZE?  If  they  obeyed  King  James, 
they  certainly  did  so. 

But  mark,  again;  these  translators  (who  were  so  ser- 
vile as  to  obey  all  King  James  said,  say  our  opponents.) 
have  given  us  the  words,  to  wash  and  to  baptize,  as 
the  true  rendering  of  baptizo  in  all  the  modern  versions 
they  consulted,  as  Tyndal's  Bible,  Coverdale,  Matthew, 
Whitchurch,  Geneva,  &c. 

The  English  version  of  the  Bible  is  perhaps  the  best 
translation  ever  made  in  any  language,  and  doubtless 
the  best  that  ever  will  be  made  into  the  English  lan- 
guage. And  no  one  need  fear  being  led  astray,  who 
will  humbly  follow  our  plain  English  Biblco  "No  man 
having  drunk  old  wine  straightway  desireth  new,  for 
he  saith  the  old  is  better."  All  the  attempts  at  new 
translations  into  our  language  have  proven  worse  than 
failures.  Wesley^s  Bible  is  scarcely  known  now. 
Campbell's  Testament  never  would  have  been,  but  for 
its  crudities  and  false  title-page.  The  smooth,  chaste 
and  flowing  version  of  Rodolphus  Dickenson,  the  Epis- 
copal  South   Carolinian,   has  met  with  the  same  fate 


86 

tliat  awaits  the  forth-coming  new  Baptist  version,  un- 
der the  auspices  of  the  Foreign  Baptist  Bible  Society^ 
[This  version  shall  be  fully  noticed  in  No.  25  of  these 
Letters.] 

We  are  contented  with  our  own  English  Bible:  it  is 
Presbyterian  enough  for  us  to  take  as  'the  only  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith  and  practice.'  With  this  in  our  hand., 
we  join  issue  with  our  opponents  who  say  'baptizo^  is  a 
word  of  MODE — never  meaning  any  thing  but  to  dip! 
We  deny  both  positions.  We  say  it  is  not  a  word  of 
mode,  nor  does  it  ever  signify  to  dip  or  immerse  in  the 
Bible.  That  it  does  signify  to  immerse  in  classical 
authors,  we  admit;  but  that  it  always  does — even  in  the 
classics — we  deny,  and  will  show  in  due  time.  Tlie 
word  baptizo  also  means  to  sprinkle,  in  the  classics^ 
but  not  in  the  Bible;  and  I  should  be  as  dishonest  in 
saying  it  was  rendered  to  sprinkle,  in  the  Bible,  as  you 
would  to  say  it  was  ever  rendered  to  immerse. 

1.  Baptizo  is  not  a  word  of  mode.  And  this  is  one 
reason  why  it  is  never  rendered  in  the  Bible  to  im- 
merse, which  is  a  word  of  mode.  'To  wash'  is  not  a 
T^  ord  of  mode — therefore  we  use  some  other  word  to 
express  the  manner  or  mode  of  washing:  see  an  in- 
stance, Hebrews  9:  10 — 'Divers  washings  and  carnal 
ordinances;'  then  verse  19 — 'He  took  water,  and  sprin- 
kled all  the  people.'  The  word  baptizo  is  rendered  in 
the  10th  verse 'to  wash' — the  manner  or  mode  of  wash- 
ing is  expressed  in  the  19th  verse  by  another  word, 
rantizo  to  sprinkle.  This  is  the  true  way  throughout 
the  Bible. 

2.  Baptizo — say  our  opponents — is  a  word  of  77iode, 
and    therefore  it  is  a  wrong    translation;   and  for  that 


87 

reason  they  are  so  anxious  for  a  new  Bible  to  substi- 
tute the  word  immerse.  But  notice;  they  admit  that 
our  AYord  baptize  is  formed  from  the  Greek  baptizo^  and 
yet  say  baptize  is  not  a  word  of  mode.  What!  does 
putting  a  Greek  word  into  English  change  it  from  be- 
ing a  word  of  .mode,  so  as  to  make  it  not  a  word  of 
MODE?  How  is  this?  Then  of  course  they  must  admi: 
that  bapiizo  is  not  a  word  of  mode;  for  baptizo  is  angia- 
cised  baptize:  but  baptize  is  not  a  word  of  3iode;  there- 
fore baptizo  is  not  a  word  of  mode.  Then  would  it  not 
have  been  a  gross  imposition,  and  corruption  of  the 
language  of  the  Bible,  for  our  translators  to  have  ren- 
dered baptizo  by  the  word  immerse  ?  And  is  it  any  less 
criminal  in  men  now  to  do  so? 

3.  To  purify  is  not  a  word  of  mode:  tho  manner  of 
purifying  is  always  laid  down  in  the  Bible.  Thus,  John 
3:  25 — ''There  arose  a  question  between  John's  disci- 
ples and  the  Jews  about  purifying;"  i.  e.  about  bapti- 
zing, evidently ;  and  they  came  to  John  to  settle  it.  All 
will  admit  this  question  was  about  baptism. 

Now  turn  to  Numbers  8:  7 — ^'•And  thus  thou  shalt 
do  unto  the  Levites,  to  cleanse  or  purify  them — sprin- 
kle zvater  of  purifying  upon  them.'"'  The  manner  of 
purifying  is  here  expressed  by  the  words  'sprinkle  wa- 
ter upon  them.'  What  then  is  the  sense,  but  this — to 
purify  or  set  apart  the  priest — as  Christ  was  by  John 
— is  the  general  idea  expressed  by  the  word  to  purify, 
the  mode  or  manner  is  expressed  by  the  words  'sprin- 
kle water  of  purification  upon  him.' 

Now,  notice;  by  these  three  words — to  Wash,  to 
Baptize,  to  Purify,  the  word  baptizo  is  expressed  in 
our  Bible,  and  never  by  any  word  signifying  mode. — 


88 

When  you  find  the  word  dip  in  the  New  Testament, 
remember  it  is  bapio,  and  not  baptizo. 

Mr.  Carson,  the  Baptist,  says:  "That  bapto  is  never 
appHed  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  any  one  can  veri- 
fy who  is  able  to  look  into  the  passages  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  where  the  ordinance  is  spoken  of.  Bapto 
is  never  used  to  denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism,''''  80, 
whenever  you  come  across  the  word  dip  in  our  Bible, 
remember  it  is  bapto^  but  not  the  word  applied  to  bap- 
tism— that  is  another  word  altogether.  Keep  this  in 
view,  and  you  cannot  be  imposed  on.  Perhaps  there 
is  one  exception,  II.  Kings,  5:  10. 

Then  to  say  that  baptizo  is  a  word  of  mode,  is  to  beg 
the  question  at  issue.  No  person  has  ever  proven  it 
to  be  so.  We  deny  it,  and  if  what  we  say  does  not 
disprove  it,  let  those  who  assert  it,  on  whom  the  bur- 
den of  proof  lies,  make  it  good. 

Immersionists  often  say,  there  is  a  word  that  mean? 
to  sprinkle^  (rantizo  ;)  why  not  use  that,  if  the  Apostles 
really  meant  sprinkling?  So  we  say,  there  is  a  word 
that  always  means  to  dip  down,  to  dip  deep,  and  that 
is  its  only  meaning;  if  baptism  meant  im3iersion,  why 
did  not  they  use  katabapto  ?  compounded  of  kata^  down, 
and  bopto^  to  dip.  Mr.  Carson  the  Baptist,  p.  71,  says 
of  this  word,  "it  signifies  literally  to  dip  down,  i.  e.  to 
DIP  DEEP  or  THOROUGHLY.  Tlic  prepositiou  is  design- 
ed to  increase  the  action  of  the  verb.*'  This  is  the 
word  for  immersion,  then,  of  course.  But  this  word 
never  occurs  in  the  Bible  in  reference  to  baptism;  if  it 
did,  it  would  be  decisive.  There  is  another  word  that 
always  means  to  dip — embapto.  Why  is  not  this  used 
in  the  Bible  in  reference  to  baptism?     We   answer, 


1S9 

Ijecause  baptizo  was  the  most  appropriate,  and  peculiar 
word  in  the  Greek  language  to  express  the  whole  idea 
of  baptism,  and  therefore  God  chose  it  for  that  pur- 
pose. Just  so,  BAPTIZE  is  the  most  appropriate  and 
peculiar  word,-  in  our  language,  to  express  the  same 
idea,  and  we  can  no  more  exchange  it  for  dip  and  I3i- 
MERSE,  than  tlie  Greeks  could  baptizo  for  katabapto^  and 
embapto.  If  we  drop  the  word  baptize,  we  must  seek 
another  name  for  one  of  God's  ordinances,  and  destroy 
the  most  happj,  and  appropriate,  and  expressive  word 
in  our  language — one  which  has  been  sanctified  by  use 
for  hundreds  of  years,  is  familiar  to  all,  and  incorpora- 
ted into  all  our  literature,  and  millions  of  volumes.  All 
for  what?  Why,  we  must  give  up  a  Greek  generic 
word  for  a  Latin  specific  term.  Suppose  some  Bota- 
nist should  take  it  into  his  head  to  destroy  or  put  out 
of  use  our  word  tree,  v/hich  is  a  generic  term,  and 
substitute  oak  or  walnut,  a  specific  term,  in  its  stead. 
INIight  not  the  simplest  child  ask — "Is  not  ash,  or  hick- 
ory, a  tree  as  well  as  oak  or  walnut?''  So  of  baptizo 
and  baptize;  they  never  can  be  given  up  for  either 
sprinkle,  dip  or  immerse.  The  new  version  will 
•not  take:  men  say  the  old  is  better.  The  English  lit- 
erature has  received  stamp  and  tinge  from  the  English 
Bible.     It  is  therefore  stereotyped. 

We  have  proved  that  neither  the  word  wash,  bap- 
tize, nor  purify,  are  words  of  mode,  and  that  by  these 
baptizo  is  rendered  in  our  Bible.  To  illustrate  the  case, 
let  us  examine  the  words  used  in  the  Supper.  Are 
the  words,  eat,  and  drink,  words  of  mode?  Do  we 
ever  think  of  ascertaining  the  mode  of  taking  the  Sup- 
per from  these  words?     Now,  Christ  uses  these  two 


90 

words,  as  he  did  the  word  baptizoj  and  a  man  may  as^ 
well  say  that  pino  signifies  the  mode  of  drinking,  and 
csfhio  the  mode  of  eating,  as  to  say  baptizo  expresses 
the  mode  of  baptism.  But  as  no  one  can  ascertain, 
from  these  simple  words,  the  mode  of  eating  or  of  drink- 
ing at  the  Supper,  so  no  one  can  the  mode  of  baptism 
from,  the  word,  baptizo.  Another  woid  is  always  used 
to  express  the  mode  of  taking  the  Supper,  viz: — ''Ana- 
pipto^  Ho  recline  at  table.'  Thus  Christ  came  in  and 
'an-apcsen^  sat  down  to  supper.  The  word  to  eat  ex- 
presses the  act,  the  word  anapesen  the  manner — reclin- 
ing at  the  table;  so  baptizo^  the  act  of  washing,  purify- 
ing, baptizing;  and  rantizo^  the  mode,  by  sprinkling. 
This  position  has  never  been  overthrown,  and  from  the 
Bible  it  never  can  be.  To  run  off  to  all  heathen  au- 
thors, and  bring  up  a  thousand  cases  out  of  the  clas- 
sics to  show  that  baptizo  does  mean  to  dip,  and  that 
Christ  did  not  know  how  to  use  words,  is  not  to  the 
point.  We  wish  to  know  how  the  word  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  is  sufficient  for  us.  But  we 
shall  get  to  the  classics  in  due  time,  and  find  that  they 
prove  all  we  say. 


LETTER  XIL 

THE  NEW  TESTAJMENT  EXPLAINS  ALL  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
POURING  AND  SPRINKLING  TO  BE  BAPTISM,  AND 
THUS  SETTLES  THE  CASE;    BAPTO  NO- 
TICED  ITS  ORIGIN. 

The  second  point  we  wish  to  note  is,  that  the  mean- 
ing of  Baptizo  is  explained  in  the  New  Testament,  most 
conclusively,  hy  a  reference  to  the  Old.  That  is, 
whenever  the  word  baptizo  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  any  thing  is  said  with  reference  to  it  in  the 
Old,  it  is  always  explained  by  the  word  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling. This  argument  I  think  conclusive,  and  it  settles 
fully,  to  my  mind,  that  the  Bible  does  reveal  the  mode 
of  baptism  to  be  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

1.  Begin  with  Christ's  Commission.  Mat.  28: 19— 
'Go,  baptize  all  nations;'  Is.  5*2:  15,  in  the  place  the 
Eunuch  was  reading,  'so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions.' That  isj  Isaiah's  'many  Jiations''  are  Christ's  'all 
7iai ions' — Isaiah's  'sprinkling'  is  Christ's  'baptizing.* 
But  it  is  still  plainer  in  Ezekiel  36:  25 — "Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean; 
a  new  heart  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you."  This  shows  what  shall  take  place  under 
Christ;  what  did  take  place  while  the  Apostles  lived; 
and,  more  particularly,  when  the  Jews  shall  be  con- 
verted and  brought  into  the  church,  they  shall  be  bap- 
tized, here  called,  'sprinkled  with  clean  water.'  Now 
these  two  prophecies  have  some  meaning,  and  to  what 
do  they  refer,  if  not  to  baptism?  Have  they  been  ful- 
filled, or  are  they  not  now  daily  fulfilUng  as  the  nations 


92 

are  "being  'sprinkled  with  clean  water?'  Christ's  com- 
mission was  to  fulfil  these  prophecies,  and  where  he  uses 
the  word  baptize  they  use  the  word  sprinkle.  This 
shows  not  only  the  mode  of  applying,  hut  the  quality  of 
the  water — 'clean  water.'  The  quantity  of  water  is 
never  named  in  Scripture,  hut  the  quality  is. 

2.  Another  case  is  Acts  1 :  5 — "For  John  truly  bap- 
tized with  water,  but  ye  shall  he  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  Now  turn  over 
t)ne  page.  Acts  2:  17,  from  Joel  2:  28 — "And  it  shali 
come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  (saith  God,)  I  will  pour 
■out  of  my  sjiirit  upon  all  flesh."  Thus,  in  the  fifth 
\erse  of  the  first  chapter,  he  says  ye  shall  be  baptized, 
and  behold,  Peter,  in  the  seventeenth  verse  of  the  sec- 
ond chapter,  calls  that  same  baptism,  'pouring  out.* 
Now,  let  any  person  show,  in  the  Bible,  one  verse  that 
calls  baptism,  immersion,  or  dipping,  or  plunging,  and 
I  will  then  admit  that  mode  to  be  Scriptural,  but  not 
sooner. 

3.  A  third  case  is  I  Cor.  10:  2 — "Our  fathers  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea." 
While  Psalm  77:  17,  says  of  it — "The  clouds  poured 
out  the  water."  Thus,  what  David  called  pouring  out 
water  upon  Israel,  Paul  calls  baptism.  Did  Paul  mis- 
understand David?  If  not,  then,  Paul  calls  baptism, 
POURING,  or  vice  versa. 

4.  A  fourth  instance  is  refered  to  in  John  3:  25. — 
A  dispute  arose  between  the  Jews  and  John's  disciples 
about  purifying,  and  they  came  to  John,  and  said  of 
Christ,  '^he  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  unto  him." 
Now,  in  Numbers  8:  7,  it  is  explained  "sprinkle  water 
.of  purifying  upon  them."     And  in  Num.  19: 20 — "The 


water  of  purification  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him:, 
he  is  unclean."  Thus,  what  the  Old  Testament  calls^ 
sprinkling  water  of  purifying  on  them,  the  New  calls 
BAPTISM.     Can  such  language  he  misunderstood? 

5.  A  fifth  case  is  also  mentioned  in  Heb.  9:  10, 19, 
as  compared  with  Ex.  24:  6,  where  in  the  10th  verse 
Paul  used  the  word  baptizo  rendered  '^wash,'  and  in 
the  19th  calls  it  'sprinkle.'  Thus,  what  Moses  did, 
when  Israel  entered  into  covenant  with  God,  called  in 
Exodus  SPRINKLING,  Paul  calls  BAPTISM.  Thcsc  are 
sufiicient  to  show  how  the  word  is  explained  in  the  two. 
Testaments.  The  pouring  or  sprinkhng  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  explained  bj  the  New  Testament  wiiters 
to  be  baptism.  But  neither  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment ever  so  speak  of  immersion  as  baptism.  Now,  did 
the  New  Testament  writers  understand  the  Old,  and 
did  the  J  use  baptizo  so  improperly  as  to  deceive  us? 
Unless  they  did,  then,  sprinkle  or  pour  is  its  Sciiptu- 
ral  mea,ning,  as  far  as  mode  is  concerned;  i.  e.  baptizo 
means  to  wash,  or  to  baptize  or  consecrate.  The  man- 
ner is  always  explained  to  be  sprinkling,  or  pouring, 
and  never  by  immersion. 

Third  general  point:  The  etymology  of  the  word  is 
what  our  friends  contend  for;  but  we  contend  that 
even  that  is  against  them,  and  in  our  favour.  BaptizO' 
is  derived  from  betpto  which  is  the  strong  original  word 
to  signify  immersion. 

We  shall  now  attempt  to  show  that  even  bapto  itself 
does  not  always  signify  to  immerse;  and  then  that  bap- 
tizo, being  both  a  derivative  and  diimnutive  of  bapto,^ 
cannot  always,  if  ever,  signify  to  immerse. 

Scapula  renders  bapto  to  dye,  to  wash. 


94 

Coulon,  to  immerse,  to  dye,  to  cleanse  by  washing. 
Notice;  this  word,  hapto^  is  never  used  for  the  ordin- 
ance of  baptism  in  the  Bible;  but  a  word  signifying 
less,  viz:  haptizo, 

Ursinus  renders  it  to  wash,  to  sprinkle. 

Keekerman,  to  sprinkle — aspcrgo. 

The  learned  Baptists,  who  wrote  letters  to  Bishop 
Hoadly,  say  ''bapto  signifies  to  sprinkle.' 

Daniel,  5:  21,  says  of  the  King,  'His  body  was  wet 
(cbapha)  with  the  dew  of  heaven.'  Does  dew  distil  or 
sprinkle  on,  or  is  it  likely  he  was  immersed  in  it? 

Homer,  in  his  battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice,  says: 

He  fell  and  breathed  no  more, 

And  the  lake  (ebaptcto)  was  tinged  v/ith  purple  blood. 
Could  this  whole  lake  have  been  taken  up  and  dipped 
in  the  blood  of  one  frog's  leg?  Mr.  Carson  says,  "What 
a  monstrous  paradox  in  rhetoric  is  this  figure  of  the 
dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  frog!  Never  was 
there  such  a  figure.  Yet,  Dr.  Gale  supposes  the  lake 
dipped.''^  I  think  with  Mr.  Carson.  Is  it  much  better 
to  say,  dip  a  man  7Dith  Jordan  ? — Or  dip^  or  baptize  Jor- 
dan ii'ith  a  man?  Then  bapto  here  means  to  tinge,  dye, 
pjid  not  to  immerse.  And  so  in  thousands  of  cases. 
Now  note;  this  is  the  strong  old  primitive  word  for  dip. 
Let  all  candid  men  yield  this  point,  or  say  the  lake  was 
taken  up  and  dipped  in  the  blood  of  one  leg  of  a  wound- 
ed frog.  Is  not  the  idea  superlatively  ridiculous  ?  But  not 
more  so,  than  to  say  that  immersion  alone  is  baptism. 
Hypocrates  uses  bapto  to  denote  the  dropping  of  tlic 
hcpiid  on  the  thing  dyed : — "When  it  drops  upon  the 
garments  they  are  (baptctoi)  baptized."  This  again  is 
sprinkling! 


95 

Aerian  says,  'Nearchus  relates  that  the  Indians  {hap- 
ten)  baptize  their  beards.'  But  do  men  immerse, 
or  apply  water  to  their  beards  in  shaving. 

Alian  says  of  an  old  coxcomb,  'He  endeavoured  to 
conceal  the  hoariness  of  his  head  by  (hapha)  baptizing 
it.'  Did  he  dip  his  head,  or  apply  the  coloring  Hquid 
to  it?     Six  authors  so  use  hapio, 

Aristophanes  says,  "Magnes  shaved  his  foce,  smear- 
ing it  (baptomanos)  with  tawny  washes." 

Aristotle  speaks  of  a  substance  'being  pressed  {hap- 
fci)  staineth  the  hand.'  Could  the  hand  be  immersed 
by  the  pressing  of  the  substance  inside  of  it? 

Walker:  "He  indeed  (baptei)  baptizeth  the  bottle.,  but 
it  never  goetk  under  the  liquid  icater,'"'  Then  it  could 
not  have  been  immersed. 

Rev.  19:  13,  Christ  is  said  to  be  'clothed  with  a  gar« 
ment  (bebamenon)  dipped  in  blood,'  while  Isaiah,  63: 
3,  explains  it — 'Their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled  upon 
my  garments,  and  I  will  stain  all  my  raiment.'  Here, 
then,  bapto  means  to  sprinkle,  without  doubt.  Thus, 
we  have  given  fourteen  cases,  showing  that  even  bap- 
to itself  signifies  to  stain,  wash,  sprinkle,  ifec,  and  we 
might  cite  as  many  more,  if  needed. 

Now,  all  say  that  baptize  is  derived  from  bapio.  Then, 
if  baptize  is  derived  from  bapto,  and  if  bapto  does  not 
always  signify  to  immerse,  but  often  to  sprinkle,  of 
course  baptizo  does  not  always  mean  to  immerse,  if  it 
ever  does,  in  Scripture.  This  conclusion  no  reasona- 
ble man  can  question. 

But  note:  baptize  is  a  diminutive  from  bapto;  i.  e.  it 
means  less,  or  less  strongly  implies  immersion.  Drs. 
Scott,  Doddridge,  Reed,  Worcester,  Mr.  Busk^   and 


96 

multitudes  of  other  learned  men  say,  '•haptizo  is  a  dimin- 
utive from  bapto  and  means  less.'  Then  this  argument 
is  two-fold,  or  'is  a  double  argument.' 

1.  Bapto  often  means  to  sprinkle  as  well  as  to  im* 
merse:  but  haptizo  is  derived  from  bapto;  therefore  bap- 
tizo  often  means  to  sprinkle. 

2.  Bapto  does  not  always  mean  to  immerse,  but  often 
to  sprinkle,  yet  its  diminutive  baptizo  means  still  less 
often  to  immerse,  and  therefore  baptizo  implies  SPRI^K- 
LiNG  more  conclusively  than  bapto^  so  that  the  argu- 
ment from  the  word  baptizo  is  decidedly  in  favour  of 
sprinkling* 


LETTER  XIII. 

ETYMOLOGY  OF    BAPTIZO,  AND  USE    OF  THE  WORD  IN 
THE    BIBLE   AND    CLASSIGSV 

Having  shown  from  the  etymology  of  baptizo  that 
it  does  not  mean  to  immerse,  in  the  Bible,  but  to  wash 
or  SPRINKLE,  we  shall  now  examine  how  the  word  is 
used  in  Scripture,  and  after  that  take  up  each  pas- 
sage of  the  Bible  that  refers  to  baptism  in  order,  be- 
ginning with  the  third  of  Matthew  and  ending  with 
Revelation. 

Dr.  Dwight  says,  'I  have  examined  almost  one  hun- 
dred instances,  in  which  the  word  baptizo  and  its  de-^ 
rivatives  are  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  four  in- 
the  Septuagint;  these,  sO' far  as  I  have  observed,  being 
all  the  instances  contained  in  both.  By  this  examina- 
tion it  is  my  apprehension  that  the  following  is  true: — 
That  the  meaning  of  these  terms  is  cleansing,  the  ef- 
fect, not  the  MODE  of  washing; — that  the  mode  is  usu- 
ally refered  to  incidentally,  wherever  these  words  are 
mentioned,  and  that  this  is  always  the  case,  whenever 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  mentioned^  and'  a  reference 
Ts  made  at  the  same  time  to  the  mode  of  administration.' 
— Vol.  4,  p.  345i  Few  are  so  capable  of  making  such 
investigations  as  Dr.  Dwight,  and  his  conclusion  is 
most  weighty. 

Dr.  John  H.  Rice  says^  of  baptize  and  baptism, 
"These  words  occur  90  times  in  the  New  Testament;  of 
these,  sixty-five  are  wholly  undetermined ;  sixteen  fa- 
vor the  mode  by  SPRINKLING  or  affusion;  two  or  three 
of  these   make  it  morally  certain  that  the  ordinance 


98 

was  administered  by  sprinkling;  and  of  the  remaining 
nine  passages,  not  one  of  them,  nor  all  of  them  to- 
gether, prove  that  baptism  was  administered  by  im- 
mersion."— See  Pamphleteer.  Who  can  question  the 
truth  of  such  an  author?  We  do  not  pretend  to  be 
able  to  add  to  what  such  men  as  Dwight  and  Rice 
have  said — but  still  we  shall  notice  every  passage  in 
the  Bible,  that  has  any  bearing  on  the  meaning  and 
use  of  the  word  baptizo,  for  the  satisfaction  of  our 
readers  in  general. 

The  first  instance  we  notice  of  baptizo  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  is  II  Kings  5:  10,  14 — Elisha  says  to  Naaman, 
4go  WASH  {loused)  in  or  at  Jordan.'  'Then  he  went  and 
baptized  (ebaptisato)  himself  seven  times  in  or  at  Jor- 
dan, according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God.'  Now, 
notice;  the  prophet  told  him  to  go  and  wash — he 
went,  and  baptized  himself,  so  that  here  baptism  is 
called  A  WASHING.  And  what  is  most  remarkable,  bap- 
tizo is  used  as  synonymous  with  louo,  to  wash.  And 
Mr.  A.  Campbell,  in  Mark  7:  4,  in  his  version,  uses 
these  words: — "They  eat  not  until  they  have  washed 
their  hands  by  pouring  a  little  water  on  them."  Then 
Elisha  said,  go  {lousdi)  wash — "he  went  and  {ebaptisato) 
baptized  himself,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of 
God."  Then  of  courSe  he  understood  the  man  of  God 
to  mean  by  washingj,  baptism.  This  only  confirms 
our  first  definition,  that  baptizo  was  not  a  word  of 
MODE,  any  more  than  wash,  in  English,  is  a  word  of 
mode.  But  to  show  the  whole  truth  about  the  leper, 
turn  to  Levit.  14:  7,  8: — 

"And  he  (the  priest)  shall  sprinkle  upon  him,  that  is 
to  be  cleansed  from  his  leprosy,  seven  times:  And  he 


that  is  to  be  cleansed  shall  wash  himself  in  water,  that 
he  may  be  clean."  This  is  the  full  case,  and  to  this 
EUsha  refered,  and  so  Naaman  acted.  So,  this  make? 
the  case  as  plain  as  language  can  make  it,  viz: — That 
BAPTizo  signifies  to  wash,  and  the  mode  implied  is  by 
sprinkling  water  upon  the  unclean  leper. 

In  Isaiah,  21 :  4,  it  occurs  thus: — "My  heart  panteth: 
fearfulness  {baptizei)  baptizeth  or  afFrighteth  me."  Here 
the  word  is  figurative,  and  is  not  definite;  but,  so  far 
ns  it  goes,  it  is  neither  a  word  of  mode,  nor  does  it 
mean  to  ii\imerse,  but  rather  the  effect  of  fear  is  meant. 
vSo  our  opponents  must  at  least  give  up  this  one.  The 
Hebrev,^  word,  translated  by  it  here,  means  to  startle, 
to  affright.  I  do  not  find  haptizo  used  again  in  the 
Septuagint,  but  bapAo  is.  Gale  finds  haptizo  twenty-five 
times,  but  all  happen  to  be  bapto^  save  one  single  case. 
And  so  it  is  with  many;  they  mistake  the  one  for  the 
other,  and  thus  violate  the  order  of  God.  When  they 
refer  to  authors  or  classics,  how  often  is  this  the  case! 
Let  us  now  turn  to  the  New  Testament. 

In  Matthew  3:  II — "He  shall  baptize  you  with  tlie 
Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  Could  men  be  immersed 
in  the  spirit,  and  in  fire  ?  But  the  meaning  of  the  word 
here  is  settled  by  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  at  Pen- 
tecost, Acts  2:  17 — 'I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit.'  Mnd 
there  appeared  cloven  tongues  as  fire,  and  sal  upon 
each  of  them.'  Thus,  this  'sheding  forth,"  'pouring  out" 
of  the  spirit,  is  baptism. 

In  Mark  T:  3 — "For  the  Pharisees  and  all  tlie  Jews, 
except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not.  And  wlien 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  tlicy 
eat  not.     And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they 


100 

have  received  to  hold,  as  washing  of  pots,  brazen  ves^ 
selsy  and  of  tables  or  beds.'^  The  word  baptizo  occurs 
twice  in  this  fourth  verse,  aad  is  rendered  wash  both 
times — and  is  used  as  synonymous  with  (nipsontai,)  to 
wash,  in  the  third  verse^  The  Jews  poured  water  on 
their  hands  to  wash,  says  Mr.  Campbell^  and  a  greater 
than  he  says,  II  Kings  3:  II — 'Elisha,  son  of  Shaphat.. 
poured  water  u^pon  the  hands  of  Elijah.'  Thus,  we 
find  baptizo  again  does  not  mean  to  immerse — ^but  to 
WASH  by  pmrmg.. 

tn  Luke  1 1 :  38 — ^"He  marvelled  that  he  had  not 
washed  (ebaptistha^  baptized)  before  dinner."^  This  is 
also  the  Latin.  So  in  Hebrews  9:  10 — "Which  stood 
in  meats  arwi  drinks,  and  divers  washings  {diaphorois 
haptismois.)  So,  in  Eplu  5:  26,  baptism  is  called  Hhc 
washing  of  water.^  In  Tit.  3 :  5 — Hhe  washing  of  re- 
generation.' Heb.  10:  22- — 'Having  our  hearts  sprin- 
kled from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water.'  Thus,  in  every  part  of  the  New 
Testament  baptism  is  called  a  washing,  and  whenever 
the  MODE  is  hinted  at  or  mentioned,  it  is  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring.     No-  man  need  deny  this. 

Hence  Br.  Wall  says,  "The  word,  baptizo^  in  Scrip- 
ture signifies  to  wash  in  general,  without  determining 
the  sense  to  this  or  that  sort  of  washing.  The  sense  of  a 
Scripture  word  is  not  to  be  taken  from  the  use  of  it  in 
secular  authors,,  but  from  the  use  of  it  in  the  Scrip- 
tures." So  that  I  care  nothing  about  how  many  secu- 
lar authors  men  bring  up  for  immersion;  I  want  the 
use  of  it  in  Scripture  to  determine  its  true  senses. 

Dr.  Jolm  P.  Campbell  says,  p^  12 — "Christian  Bap- 
tism is  a  washing  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Path- 


101 

<jr,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.""  Can  any  object  to  this  de- 
finition of  Baptism  ?  If  so,  what  is  the  objection  ?  They 
say  more  water,  like  Peter.  Then  here  the  secret  leaks 
out,  that  it  is  the  quantity  of  water  at  last,  and  not  the 
ijuality  or  mode,  that  gives  validity  to  baptism.  I  had 
thought  Christ  had  cured  all  of  his  disciples  of  wanting 
more  water,  when  he  so  rebuked  Peter  for  it,  and  said 
•"he  that  is  washed  is  clean  every  whit."" 

I  shall  now  substantiate  the  above  position  by  a  list 
■o(  authorities  sufficient  to  satisfy  all  candid  minds.  But 
I  must  quote  a  remark  of  Professor  Pond  first,  p.  51 — 
*'But  until  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  1  find  no  account  of  any  churcli,  or  sect  of 
Christians,  which  held  that  immersion  was  essential  to 
the  ordinance."     This  is  true. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  giving  the  follow- 
ing authorities  to  prove  what  the  Bible  use  -of  baptizo 
IS — but  only  to  confirm  what  we  have  already  found  to 
be  taught  in  the  word  of  God.  I  shall  begin  in  the  ear- 
liest times,  and  give  a  regular  catalogue  of  authors : 

Homer  says — ^"He  struck  him  across  the  neck  with 
his  heavy  sword,  and  his  sword  became  warm  with 
blood.  The  sword  is  baptized  (ehaptistha)  with  blood.' 
Another  critic  says — "In  this  phrase  Homer  expresses 
himself  with  great  energy,  signifying  that  the  sword  was 
^o  baptized  in  blood,  that  it  was  even  heated."  Is 
not  this  sprinkling?  Was  the  sword  applied  to  the 
neck,  or  the  neck  of  the  man  struck  against  the  sword  ? 
Which  MODB  is  here  meant?  Did  Homer  know  his 
own  language  and  use  it  correctly? 

Aristotle  says — "The  Phoenicians,  who  inhabit  Cadiz, 
relate  tliat,  saiUng  beyond  Hercules'  pillars  with  the 


102 

wind  at  East,  in  four  days  they  came  to  a  land  unin- 
habited, whose  coasts  w^ere  full  of  seaweed,  and  is  not 
baptized  (baptizcslhai)  i.  e.  not  overflown  wdth  water  at 
ebb,  but  w^hen  thfe  tide  comes  in  it  is  entirely  over- 
whelmed." Here  is  baptism,  but  not  immersion. — 
Was  all  this  coast  taken  up  and  immersed  or  dipped 
into  w^ater,  or  was  the  water  appUed  to  it  by  coming 
upon  the  coast?  This  is  the  true  mode — applying  w^a- 
ter  to  the  person  or  thing  baptized,  and  this  is  the  true 
sense  in  which  baptizo  is  used  in  the  New  Testament. 
A^lio,  then,  I  ask,  has  the  Scriptural  mode  of  baptism  ? 
And  what  is  the  evidence  from  the  classics  ?  It  is  in 
our  favor. 

Plutarch  says — "Thou  mayest  be  baptized  {baptizou- 
f.i)  but  it  is  not  permitted  to  thee  to  go  under  the  wa- 
ter."    No  immersion. 

Aristophanes  says — "He  had  been  baptized  with 
wine  on  the  preceding  day."  Was  he  plunged  into  the 
wine,  or  it  poured  into  him? 

Diodorus  Seculus  says — "On  account  of  the  abun- 
dant supply  from  these  sources,  they  do  not  {baptizou- 
sei)  oppress  the  common  people  with  taxes."  They 
were  not  immersed. 

Josephus  speaks  "of  some,  who  without  engaging  in 
faction  afterwards  (ebaptizan)  oppressed  the  city" — i.  e. 
the  people. 

Plutarch  says — "Bebapiismofioi^  baptized  with  a  debt 
of  five  hundred  pounds."     These  are  figurative. 

Josephus,  speaking  of  purification  from  defilement, 
says,  "Having  baptized  some  of  the  ashes  with  spiing- 
water,  they  sprinkled,"  &c. — Art.,  lib.  4.  c.  4.  "They 
shall  take  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer;  and  running 


103 

Water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel,  and  a  clean  per- 
son sprinkle  it."  This  putting  the  running  water  on 
the  ashes  Josephus  calls  baptizing  the  ashes. 

AH  these  cases  show  that  the  baptism  was  performed 
by  applying  water  or  whatever  liquid  was  used,  to  the 
person^  and  never  the  person  to  the  icatcr.  Which,  then,  is 
the  true  mode?  Some  want  an  early  case  of  bapfizo  so 
used,  and  here  it  is,  from  the  very  oldest  of  authors. 


LETTER  XIV. 

HISTORY  OF  THE    MODE  OF    BAPTISM    FROM    JOHN   TO 
^HE  TWELFTH  CENTURY. 

Having  given  some  authorities  from  the  Classics,  we 
shall  now  continue,  and  give  some  instances  from  tlic 
Apocrypha  and  Fathers. 

In  Ecclesiasticus  34:  30,  we  read:  "He  that  is  bap- 
tized (baptizomenos)  or  purified  from  the  touch  of  a 
dead  body,  and  again  toucheth  it,  what  is  he  profited 
by  his  (to  hutio)  w^ashing."  Here  note:  baptism  is 
called  WASHING  or  purifying,  which,  in  Numbers  19: 
19,  is  called  "sprinkling  on  the  unclean." 

So,  in  Judith  12:  7 — She  is  said  to  have  gone  out 
*in  the  night,  and  {ebaptizeto)  baptized  herself,  {epi)  at 
the  fountain  of  water' — i.  e.  she  went  and  washed  at 
the  fountain,  and  this  is  called  baptism.  These  cases 
are  too  plain  to  need  comments. 

The  Christian  Fathers  show,  conclusively,  that  im- 
mersion is  not  the  only  true  mode  of  baptism;  but,  that 
it  means  to  avasii. 

Justin  Martyr,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  ancient 
Christians,  calls  it,  repeatedly,  (loution)  a  washing,  and 
quotes  Isaiah,  as  predicting  it,  thus:  ch.  1,  v.  IG — 
"Wash  ye,  make  you  clean."  Indeed,  this  is  very  com- 
mon to  the  Fathers. 

As  this  is  the  most  ancient  and  accurate  account  of 
tiie  ordinance  of  baptism  on  record,  except  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  I  will  cite  the  whole  record.  It  was  writ- 
ten forty  years  after  John,  or  A.  D.  140,  in  Justin 
Martyr's  First  Apologue  to  Antonius: 


105 

<'I  will  now  declare  to  you  also,  after  what  manner 
we,  being  made  new  by  Christ  (or  baptized,)  have 
dedicated  ourselves  to  God;  lest,  if  I  should  leave  it 
t)ut,  I  might  seem  to  deal  unfairly  in  some  part  of  my 
apology.  They  who  arc  persuaded  and  do  believe  that 
those  things  which  are  taught  by  us  are  true,  and  do 
promise  to  live  according  to  them,  are  directed  first  to 
pray  and  ask  of  God,  with  fasting,  the  forgiveness  of 
their  former  sins;  and  we  also  pray  and  fast  together 
with  them.  Then  we  bring  them  to  some  place  where 
there  is  water;  and  they  are  regenerated  by  the  same 
way  of  regeneration,  by  which  we  were  regenerated: 
for  they  arc  washed  with  water  in  the  name  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther and  Lord  of  all  things,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  Christ  says,  un- 
less ye  be  regenerated  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven;  and  every  body  knows  it  is  impossible 
for  tht)se,  that  are  once  born,  to  enter  the  second  time 
into  their  mother's  womb.  It  was  foretold  by  the 
prophet  Isaiah,  as  I  said,  by  what  means  they,  who 
would  repent  of  their  sins,  might  escape  them,  and  was 
written  in  these  words — ''Wash  t/e,  make  you  clean;  put 
away  your  evil^^  &;c. — Isa.  1:  16." 

I  would  here  remark,  that  we  find  no  writer  for  iu-o 
hundred  years  after  Christ  using  haptizo  to  signify  im- 
merse, Justin  uses  the  word  rmsh  as  our  English  Bible 
does  in  every  case  when  translated.  So  speak  all,  till 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  But  when  the 
Gnosticism  of  the  East  had  taught  the  church  that  sin 
was  in  matter  or  the  body,  and  must  be  washed  off,  in 
the  third  century  the  trine  immersion  commenced;  and 
this  is  the  first  account  of  it,  as  we  shall  find  when  we 


106 

come  to  the  history  of  immersion  in  the  24th  number 
of  these  Letters.  After  this,  trine  immersion^  once  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  once  in  the  name  of  the  Son, 
and  once  in  the  name  of  the  Holj  Spirit,  was  common, 
says  Robinson,  for  1500  years;  hence,  you  find  the  Fa- 
thers speaking  of  immersion  after  Tertulhan,  but  it 
never  was  made  essential  to  bopiism^  till  after  Mun- 
zer  and  Storch,  1522, 

Tertullian  speaks  of  baptism  by  sprinkling — "Who 
will  accommodate  you,  a  man,  whose  penitence  is  so 
little  to  be  trusted  (asparginem)  with  one  sprinkling  of 
water;"  ch.  G.     This  sprinkling  of  water  is  his  baptism. 

Origen  calls  baptism  pouring,  thus:  "How  come  you 
to  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should  come,  would  bap- 
tize; who  did  not,  in  Ahab's  time,  baptize  the  wood 
upon  the  altar  which  was  to  be  washed  before  it  was 
burnt  by  the  Lord's  offering  in  fire?  But  he  orders 
THE  Priest  to  do  that,  not  only  once,  but  says: 
Do  it  the  second  time;  and  they  did  it  the  second 
time;  and  do  it  the  third  time;  and  they  did  it  the 
third  time.  He,  therefore,  that  did  not  himself  bap- 
tize then,  but  assigned  that  work  to  others,  when  he 
according  to  Malachi's  prophecy  should  come?"  Thus, 
what  I  Kings  18:  33,  calls  "pouring  water  on,"  Origen 
calls  baptizing.  Is  not  this  plain?  Notice:  Origen 
is  one  of  the  early  and  most  learned  of  all  the  Fath- 
ers."    See  his  comment  on  John,  Lib.  7. 

Lactantius  says:  "Christ  received  baptism,  that  he 
might  save  the  Gentiles  by  baptism,  i.  e.  by  the  distil- 
ling of  the  purifying  dew." — Lib.  4,  ch.  15.  Thus,  the 
water  of  baptism  is  represented  as  falling  like  dew. 

Cyprian  quotes  Ezekiel  36:  25 — "Then  will  I  sprin- 


107 

kle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean;  a  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,"  calling  it  baptism,  I  will 
give  the  whole  of  this  quotation  from  Cyprian's  Epis- 
tle 69.  Magnus  had  written  to  him  about  persons 
baptized  on  their  beds,  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  and 
he  answers: 

"You  inquire,  also,  dear  son,  what  I  think  of  such  as 
obtain  the  grace  (of  baptism)  in  time  of  their  sickness 
and  infirmity;  whether  they  are  to  be  accounted  law- 
ful Christians,  because  they  arc  not  washed  all  over 
with  the  water  of  salvation,  but  have  only  some  of  it 
potJRED  UPON  THEM.  [Gnosticism  had  then  entered,  and 
trine  immersion  was  very  common,  many  really  believ- 
ing that  unless  a  person  was  immersed  three  times,  they 
could  not  be  saved.]  In  which  matter,  I  use  so  much 
modesty  and  humility  as  not  [Hke  many  now-a-days]  to 
prescribe  so  positively,  but  that  every  one  should  have 
the  freedom  of  his  own  thought,  and  do  as  he  thinks 
best.  I  do,  according  to  the  best  of  my  mean  capaci- 
ty, judge  thus,  that  the  divine  favors  are  not  maimed 
or  WEAKENED,  SO  as  that  any  thing  less  than  the  whole 
of  them  is  conveyed,  where  the  benefit  of  them  is  re- 
ceived with  a  full  and  complete  faith,  both  of  the  giver 
and  receiver.  For,  the  contagion  of  sin  is  not,  in  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,  washed  off  by  the  same  measure 
that  the  dirt  of  the  skin  and  of  the  body  is  washed  off 
in  an  ordinary  and  secular  bath — as  some  think — so 
as,  that  there  should  be  any  necessity  of  soap,  and  oth- 
er helps,  and  a  large  fish  pond  or  pool,  by  which  the 
body  is  washed.  It  is  in  another  way,  that  the  breast 
of  a  believer  is  washed — or  baptized: — after  another 
fashion,  that  the  mind  of  a  man  is,  by  faith,  cleansed. 


108 

\n  the  sacrament  of  salvation,  when  necessity  compel^ 
the  shortest  ways  of  transacting  divine  matters  do,  by 
God's  gracious  dispensation,  confer  the  whole  benefit. 
And  no  man  need,  therefore,  think  otherwise,  because 
these  sick  people,  when  they  received  the  baptism 
(grace)  of  our  Lord,  have  nothing  but  an  affusion  or 
sprinkling;  for  the  Holy  Scriptures,  by  the  Prophet 
Ezekiel,  36:  25,  says:  'Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  wa- 
ter upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean.' "  Could  Cypri- 
an have  spoken  more  decidedly?  Does  he  not,  then, 
call  'baptism  a  sprinkling?'^ — and  'sprinkling  the  Lord's 
baptism?''  This  is  the  same  Cyprian  who  wrote  the  let- 
ter to  Fidus  about  Infant  Baptism  in  253,  or  153  years 
after  John.     Is  he  not  as  plain  on  sprinkling  i' 

8t.  Lawrence,  who  suffered  Martyrdom  in  Cyprian's 
time,  in  Hhe  Acts  of  Lawrence,'  tells,  "How  one  of  the 
soldiers,  that  was  to  be  his  executioner,  being  convert- 
ed, brought  a  pitcher  of  water  for  Lawrence  to  baptize 
him." — Wall,  ch.  9,  p.  2:  also,  says  Strabo. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  speaking  of  the  young  man 
who  turned  robber,  whom  John  reclaimed,  says:  "He 
was  baptized  a  second  time,  with  tears."  Euseb.,  lib. 
3,  ch.  23 — The  Apostle  John  baptized  him. 

The  whole  case  is  this:  The  Apostle  John  had 
trained  up  a  young  man  who  had  afterwards  gone  off, 
and  became  captain  of  a  band  of  robbers.  John  went 
after  him,  and  was  taken  by  the  band  and  brought  be- 
fore their  captain,  who  immediately  recognized  the 
venerable  old  Apostle  and  fled  from  him;  but  John 
called  to  him,  "Stay,  my  Son,  Chiist  hath  sent  me.'* — 
Hearing  this,  he  at  first  stopped,  with  down-cast  looks; 
then    threw  away  his  arms;    then  trembling  lamented 


109 

bitterly,  and  embracing  the  old  man  as  he  came  up^ 
attempted  to  plead  for  himself,  as  much  as  he  was 
able,  "as  if  baptized  a  second  time  with  his  own  tears.''' — 
Was  the  young  man  taken  up,  and  dipped  into  his  own 
tears?  Or  did  the  fears  run  doum  his  face^  as  did  the  wa- 
ter of  baptism^  when  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him  af 
first  by  the  holy  Apostle  John?  Could  this  second  bap- 
tism have  been  like  his  Jirst  given  by  John,  or  the  first 
Kke  the  second,  unless  it  was  by  sprinkling  ?  This  is  a 
case  of  APOSTOLIC  baptism,  and,  without  doubt,  a  case 

of  SPRINKLIIVG. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  says:  "I  know  of  a  fourth  bap- 
tism^ that  by  Martyrdom  and  blood,  and  of  a  fifth  bap- 
tism, that  of  tears."^ 

Basil  tells  of  a  martyr  who  'was  baptized  into  Christ,, 
with  his  own  blood.' 

Athanasius  says :  "God  hath  granted  unto  man  the 
purging  baptism,  that  of  water,  that  of  the  testimony 
of  his  own  blood,  and  that  of  tears."  "There  are 
three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,,  the  spirit,  the  water,, 
and  the  blood,  and  these  three  agree  in  one"  mode  of 
application.  'The  baptism  of  tears  and  of  blood'^  was^ 
a  favorite  phrase  with  the  Fathers,  and  it  shows  yous 
how  they  used  the  word  baptizo,  Ho  bedew  with  tears,'' 

Eusebius,  Lib.  6,  ch.  5,  mentions  Basilides,  baptized, 
in  prison: — "On  this  the  brethren  gave  him  baptism, 
the  seal  of  the  Lord,'"' — This  was  done  by  sprinkling,  as 
Paul  baptized  the  Jailor  in  prison.. 

Irenius  says,  Lib^  1,  ch  23 — "There  was  a  sect  of 
Christians,  who  baptized  by  an.  affusion  or  sprinkling, 
©f  water  mixed  with  oil." 

Athanasius  represents  the  Arians  as  'administering 


no 

baptism  {rantizomenon)  by  sprinkling^  and  does  not 
censure  it. 

In  the  time  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  60  years  after  the 
Apostles,  a  Jew  is  mentioned,  as  in  the  army,  and 
falUng  sick,  desired  baptism.  Not  having  water,  Hhey 
sprinkled  him  thrice,  with  the  sandj  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.'  He  recovered,  and 
his  case  was  reported  to  the  Bishop,  who  decided  that 
the  man  was  baptized,  if  he  only  had  the  water  poured 
on  him — (peifwideretur.)  Was  immersion  essential  to 
his  baptism,  or  sprinkling? 

Novatian  was  converted  120  years  after  the  Apostles, 
and  'when  visited  with  sickness,  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered to  him,  according  to  the  custom  of  those  times,  by 
affusion  or  sprinkling.' — Walker,  ch.  10. 

Constantino,  the  Great,  'clothed  witli  a  white  garment, 
and  laid  upon  his  bed,  was  baptized  in  a  solemn  manner, 
by  Eusebius,  of  Nicomedia.' — Dupin,  vol.  2;  p.  84. 

Auselius  Prudentius,  in  390,  thus  sings — "Worship- 
per of  God,  remember  that  thou  didst  go  under  the  holy 
dews  of  baptism;*'  i.  e.  that  thou  wast  sprinkled  in 
baptism. — Pond,  part  49. 

Socrates,  Lib.  7,  ch.  17,  tells  of  a  celebrated  font, 
'out  of  which  the  water  is  poured,  from  above,  on  the 
baptized  person.'  That,  wlien  a  hypocritical  Jew, 
from  mercenary  views,  offered  himself  for  baptism,  'and 
held  his  head  over  the  font,  the  water  vanished  away, 
once  and  again.' 

Grannadius,  in  490,  says — "The  person  to  be  bap- 
tized makes  confession  of  his  faith,  and  after  that,  he  is 
sprinkled  with  water — it/  entingitur,'''  Then  isprinkling 
was  genuine  baptism. 


Ill 

Clodovedus,  King  of  France,  in  499,  'was  baptized 
by  Remigius,  Arch-Bishop  of  Rheimes,  by  pouring  of 
water.' 

Mabillon  says — ''Lindgcrus  baptized  a  Hltle  infant, 
by  pouring  on  holy  or  consecrated  water." 

Stephen  II,  Bishop  of  Rome,  decreed  in  753 — 
"That  pouring  w^as,  and  should  be  considered  vaUd  bap- 
tism." 

Walafridus  Strabo,  in  850,  says — "Many  have  been 
baptized  by  pouring  water  on  them  from  above,  and 
they  may  still  be  so  baptized."  Yet  he  is  claimed  as 
a  Baptist. 

Bede  calls  'pouring  of  water,  baptism' — pcrfundo 
aqua — and  speaks  of  one  Heribaldus,  who  was  so  bap- 
tized, 'unda  perfusus  sum,''  &:c. 

Nicatas  speaks  of  "Those  who  have  been  baptized 
by  pouring." 

Gratian  calls  sprinkling,  baptism,  saying — "The 
blessed  waters,  with  which  men  are  sprinkled,  avail  to 
their  sanctification." 

The  Agenda  of  Mentz,  by  Sabastian,  says:  "Then 
let  the  Priest  take  the  child  in  his  left  arm,  and  hold- 
ing him  over  the  font,  let  him,  with  his  right  hand, 
three  several  times,  take  water  out  of  the  font,  and 
pour  it  on  the  child's  head,  so  that  the  water  may  wet 
its  head  and  shoulders."     This  is  conclusive. 

We  hope  the  reader  will  not  get  tired  with  this 
multiplicity  of  Authors.  We  shall  get  done  after  a 
while. 


LETTER  XV. 

HISTORY  OF  BAPTISM  FROM  THE  TWELFTH  CENTURY 
TO  THE  REFORMATION. 

We  have  given  authors  ciowii  t©  the  twet.fth  cen- 
tury. We  shall  now  complete  the  Mst  down  to  the 
present  time^  showing  that  the  most  learned  men  of  all 
ages  say,  that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism. 

Thomas  Aquinas,,  in  1255,  discusses  the  question,, 
whether  immersion  be  of  the  essence  or  necessity  of 
baptism?     He  answers  in  the  negative,  thus: 

"As  a  washing  of  water  may  be  made  by  aspersion 
or  affusion,  so  a  baptism  may  be  made  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring." — Walker,  ch.  10. 

Bonaventura,  soon  after,  discusses  the  same  question, 
and  answers  it  in  the  same  way :  "It  is  to  be  presumed 
tliat  the  Apostles  baptized  by  sprinkling,  which  way 
k  still  kept  in  many  churches,  but  mostly  in  the  Gallic 
can."  Mind,  this  was  many  years  befoi'e  Calvin  was 
born,  whom  some  accuse  of  first  introducing  sprink- 
ling. 

Angelus  Clavasius  says: — "The  infant,  in  what  way 
soever  he  is  touched  with  water,  is  baptized^  A  sprink- 
ling, how  little  soever  it  be,  is  sufficient."^ 

Erasmus  says — "With  us  (Dutch)  they  have  the  wa- 
ter poured'  on  them  in  baptism." 

Martin  Bucer  says — ^"God  commanded  unto  mei> 
such  a  rite,,  as  that,  either  by  the  intinction  of  sprink- 
ling of  water,  they  should  receive  baptism. 

Lyndwood,  in  1322,  speaks  of  some  who  dipped  ihr 
fents,.  and  says — "But  this  (immersion)  is  not  to  be  ae? 


113 

counted  to  be  of  the  essence  of  baptism;  but  it  may  be 
given  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  especially,  if  the  cus- 
tom of  the  church  allows  it." 

Danaus  says — "At  this  day,  they  who  are  to  be  bap- 
tized are  mostly  sprinkled  with  water,  and  not  dipped 
into  it." 

The  Synod  of  Aix  says — "The  pouiingof  the  water 
in  baptism  be  not  done  with  the  hand,  but  with  a  la- 
dle or  vessel  kept  in  the  font  for  that  purpose." 

Zanchy  says,  Lib.  1 — "The  three  thousand  (at  Pen- 
tecost) w^cre  baptized  in  no  other  way,  than  (aspersionc 
aqua)  by  sprinkling  of  water." 

So  say  Bonaventura,  Lyndwood,  Nicholas  and  Cha- 
mier. 

Peter  Lombard  says — "Baptism  signifies  intinction, 
i.  e.  a  washing  of  the  body  with  a  prescribed  form  of 
words." 

Lyndwood: — "Dipping  is  not  to  be  accounted  to  be 
of  the  essence  of  baptism,  but  it  may  be  rightly  given 
by  sprinkling  or  pouring." 

Hemengius: — "As  often  as  we  see  infants  sprinkled 
with  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are  reminded  of  their 
secret  regeneration." 

Beza: — ^"They  are  rightly  baptized,  who  are  bap- 
tized by  sprinkling." 

Dominions  Sotus: — "In  baptism,  theie  is  something 
essential,  as  the  washing;  and  something  accidental, 
namely,  the  washing  in  this  or  that  manner." 

Lightfoot: — "The  application  of  water  is  of  the  es- 
sence of  baptism;  but  the  application,  in  this  or  that 
manner,  speaks  but  a  circumstance." 

Featly: — "Christ  no  where  reqidretk  dippings  but  only 

9 


114 

baptizing,  which  word,  Hesychius,  Stephanus,  Scapula 
and  Buddeus,  those  great  masters  of  the  Greek  tongue, 
make  good  by  very  many  instances  out  of  the  classic 
writers,  importeth  no  more  than  ablution  or  washing.*' 
Pond,  page  27. 

Dr.  Owen : — "Baptism  is  any  kind  of  washings  wheth- 
er by  dipping  or  sprinkling" — But  not  as  Mr.  Camp- 
bell falsely  quotes  it. 

Luther,  the  great  Reformer,  says: — "Administeiing 
liaptism,  by  s^prinkling  water  upon  the  subject  in  connex- 
ion with  the  words  prescribed  by  God."     And  '^sprink- 
ling  it  (the  child)  with  water,    according  to  the  com- 
mand of  Christ."     "Inasmuch  as  there  is  neither  orna- 
ment nor  honor  at  baptism,  and  God  does  outwardly 
no  more  than  apply  a  handful  of  water,''''     Hall  says, 
p.  73 — "The  Germans,  and  all  Lutherans  who  use  his 
translation,  baptize  by  sprinklings  as  Luther  practiced, 
and  as  Luther  taught  them."     When  a  German  min- 
ister takes  water  in  his  hand,  and  sprinkles  or  pours  it 
on  the  person  baptized,  saying,  "/c/i  Taufe  Dick,'''  does 
he  mean  I  immerse  you?     Do  the  people  understand 
him  so  ?    Most  certainly  not.     When  Luther  took  water 
in  his  hand,  and  poured  or  sprinkled  it  on  the  head  of  a 
person,  saying,  "/cA  Taufe  Dich^''  he  said  and  meant,  "/ 
baptize  you^  Weber's  German  and  EngHsh  Dictionary 
says  of  this  word — "Taufe,''^  ''bnptisms''ychrisieni)ig  f 
^'Taufcn^'^  "to  baptize,"  "to  christen."     Then,  when 
we  find  the  word  for  immerse^  it  is  as  different  as  our 
word  sprinkle  is  from  immerse: — read  it.  ^^Eintauchcn^'' 
^hintcrtauchen^'  ^'vertiefen,'''  "To  immerse."     Then,  im- 
mersion is  called  "untertauchioig^'''  ''versunkung."'      \et 
you  will  hear  immersionists  contend,  that   Taufcr  and 


115 

Taufen  mean  to  immerse,  when  the  words  are  never  so 
used.  Burckhardt,  in  his  German  and  English  Lexi- 
con, gives  the  same  significations  as  above. 

How  can  honest  men  attempt  thus  to  deceive,  by 
contending  that  Luther's  version  renders  the  word  to 
immerse,  when  he  uses  "Tmifen,''''  to  baptize,  to  zvash? 
As  well  might  they  contend  that  the  Presbyterians  of 
Geneva,  or  the  Lutherans  of  the  present  time,  immerse. 
Immersion  is  as  unknown  in  the  German  version  as  it 
is  in  the  English.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Dutch, 
Danish,  and  Swedish  versions.  Yet  you  will  hear  many 
refering  to  these  very  versions  for  immersion.  The 
^'Peshito-syriac'^  version,  made,  says  a  learned  Baptist, 
••by  the  last  of  the  first  century,"  and  which  immer- 
sionists  think  so  much  of  as  favoring  their  mode,  uses  a 
word  radically  the  same  with  the  German  Taufen,  and 
the  English  word  baptize.  This  Bible  is  the  present  Xcs- 
iorians^  who  consider  sprinkling  a  valid  baptism.  But 
this  very  old  and  venerable  Syriac  Bible  will  forever 
silence  all  opposers  of  Infant  Baptism,  for  it  says: 
^•When  she  [Lydia]  was  baptized  with  her  children,'^  <^t. 
It  will  not  do  any  more  to  say  "Lydia  was  a  maiden 
lady;"  it  is  useless  to  say  "Infant  Baptism  was  never 
heard  of  till  the  third  century"' — your  own  good  old 
Syriac  version  of  the  first  century  tells  you  that  you 
are  wrong,  friends.  What  will  you  do?  Will  you  ac- 
knowledge it,  and  have  your  children  baptized? — and 
that  by  sprinkhng?  Never  say  Syriac  version  again, 
unless  you  will.  But  the  good  old  ''Coptic  version  gives 
the  same  reading,"  says  Kurtz,  p.  99.  It  is  a  danger- 
ous thing  for  Anti-p^edobaptists  to  refer  to  old  versions, 
or  the  oldest  of  the  Fathers.     Yet  nothino;is  more 


com- 


riiou  with  many  who  go  by  hear-say.  Then,  the  Syri- 
ac  and  Coptic  versions  make  household  "baptism  and  In- 
fant Baptism  one  and  the  same  thing,  and  agree  fully 
with  our  Bible  in  favor  of  sprinkling, 

Calvin : — "Then  the  minister  of  baptism  pours  water 
upon  the  infant,  saying — 'I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.' "  Again,  in  his  In- 
stitutes, he  says: — 

"But  whether  the  person  who  is  baptized  be  wholly 
immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  wa- 
ter be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  on  him,  is  of  no  impor- 
tance; churches  ought  to  be  left  at  liberty  to  act,  in 
this  respect,  according  to  the  difference  of  countries. 
The  very  word  baptize,  however,  signifies  to  immerse 
(as  well  as  to  sprinkle,)  and  it  is  certain  that  immer- 
sion was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church,"  after  the 
second  century. — Lib.  4.,  ch.  15,  sec.  19.  Yet  you 
will  hear  some  would-be  wise  people  say,  that  "Calvin 
invented  sprinkling  first,  and  from  him  it  spread  into 
England  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth,"  and  yet  these  very 
people  will  quote  Calvin  in  favor  of  immersion :  First 
quote  him  to  prove  immersion,  and  then  say  he  invent- 
ed sprinkling!     What  beautiful  consistency!! 

Walker; — '^ Baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  true 
and  lawful  baptism^  and  all  ages  of  the  chitrch  have  been 
of  that  opinion. ^^ 

Dr,  Wall: — "The  word  baptizo^  in  Scripture,  signi- 
fies to  WASH  in  generaly  without  determining  the  sense 
to  this  or  that  sort  of  washing.''  "On  extraordinary 
occasions,  baptism,  by  sprinkling  water  on  the  face,  was 
by  the  ancients  accounted  sufficient  baptism — of  this, 
there  are  many  proofs."     Yet  Wall  was  for  immersion. 


117 

Robinson,  the  great  Baptist  author,  says: — '^Before 
the  Reformation,  sprinkling  was  held  valid  baptism,  in 
cases  of  necessity." — Page  116. 

The  Author  of  Letters  to  Arch-Bishop  Hoadly,  a 
great  Baptist,  says: — "i^or  thirteen  hundred  years  suc- 
cessively, after  the  Apostles,  sprinkling  was  permitted,  oti 
extraordinary  occasions,''^ 

Among  the  English  exiles,  in  Queen  Mary^s  reign, 
the  Book  of  Forms  says: — "The  minister  shall  take  wa- 
ter in  his  hand,  and  lay  it  on  the  child's  forehead,  and 
say,  'I  baptize  thee,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit.'" 

Mre  Carson,  the  celebrated  Baptist  writer,  attempts 
to  show  that  baptize  signifies  to  dip,  but  says,  p.  79 — 
^JVow,  I  have  all  the  Lexicographers  and  Commentators 
against  me,  in  this  opinion.^^  Yet  Mr»  Campbell  says 
— ^'Go  to  the  Lexicons,''' 

Mr.  Gale,  the  English  Baptist,  who  attempts  to  re- 
ply to  Dr.  Wall,  says — "The  word  baptizo  does  not  al- 
ways, necessaiily,  signify  or  imply,  a  total  immersion,  or 
dipping  the  whole  thing,  spoken  of,  all  over,  which  I  read- 
ily allow.^^ — 'Gale,  page  147. 

Again: — What  is  said  of  any  one  part  is  true  of  the 
whole,  complexly;  though  not  of  every  part  of  the  zvholr, 
separately.  Thus,  I  dip  or  baptize  the  pen,  meaning 
only  the  nib  of  it,  though  the  whole  pen  is  not  dipped 
all  over."  This  flatly  contradicts  Mr.  Carson,  the  oth- 
er Baptist  champion,  who  sa-js— ''Baptizo  ahvays  signi- 
fies to  dip  or  immerse,  never  expressing  any  thing  but 
7node.^^  But  if,  when  any  part  is  dipped,  it  is  as  good 
as  the  WHOLE,  then  when  water  is  put  on  the  fore- 
head, and  it  is  covered,  it  is  bappized,  says  Gale.     If 


ii8 

this  is  all  he  means  by  immersion,  I  shall  not  dispute 
Ills  MODE.  And  if  this  rule  is  true,  that  'what  is  said  of 
a  part^  is  true  of  the  zchole,''  then  when  we  baptize  a  part 
of  the  person,  the  forehead,  we  baptize  the  whole 
PERSON ;  and  this  is  just  the  truth,  which  we  have  al- 
ways tried  to  get  our  Baptist  brethren  to  see  and  ad- 
mit, and  as  Mr.  Gale,  their  greatest  man,  has  fully 
adopted  it,  we  hope  they  will  follow  him,  and  contro- 
versy here  will  end. 

Here  we  shall  add  a  testimony,  as  to  John's  mode  of 
baptism. 

Aurelius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  290  years  after  the 
Apostles,  represents  John  as  'baptizing  by  pouring' — 
'Pefimdit  fiivioJ^ 

Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Nola,  a  little  later,  says  of  John 
— ''He  washes  away  the  sins  of  believers,  by  the  pour- 
ing of  water." 

Bernard  says — "John  baptized  the  Lord  after  this 
manner;  infundit  aquam  capiti  Creatoris  creaturaJ^-  — 
^^'alker,  ch.  10. 

Lightfoot  says — "As  it  is  beyond  a  doubt,  that  John 
took  those,  whom  he  intended  to  baptize,  into  the  riv- 
er; so  it  is  scarcely  less  certain,  that  he  there  sprinkled 
them  with  water." 

Numerous  ancient  paintings  represent  John  as  bap- 
tizing Christ,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  as  all  admit. 

It  is  needless  to  add  more  to  this  long  catalogue  of 
authors  who  declare  sprinkling  or  pouring  to  be  true 
baptism,  and  all  of  whom  declare  the  meaning  of  the 
word  to  be  to  wash.  Not  one  of  them  make  immersion 
essential  to  baptism,  unless  they  are  the  few  Baptist 
authors  last  named^ 


119 

We  have  thus  given  a  Ust  of  the  oldest  of  the  clas- 
sics; the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments;  the 
Apocrypha;  a  regular  list  of  the  Fathers,  from  the  Apos- 
tles down  till  after  the  Reformation,  even  to  our  own 
day. 

We  shall  conclude  this  letter  with  a  word  on  Psedo- 
baptist  concessions.  Nothing  is  more  common  than  to 
hear  the  advocates  for  imm.ersion  quote  a  list  of  Psedo- 
baptist  authors,  to  prove  that  the  word  baplizo  means 
to  immerse.  But  what  does  that  prove?  Why,  only 
that  Pagdobaptists  are  too  learned  and  honest  men  to 
deny  what  is  true  in  the  classics;  but  it  is  very  seldom 
we  find  ingenuousness  enough  in  immersiomsts  to  con- 
cede what  is  equally  true,  and  declared  so  by  these  same 
men  in  theory  and  practice,  viz — that  baptizo  signifies, 
also,  to  SPRINKLE.  How  shall  we  account  for  this  want 
of  liberality,  for  we  cannot  call  it  dishonesty?  I  will 
venture  this  assertion,  that  if  Pagdobaptists  were  all 
quoted  fairly  and  fully,  there  is  not  a  distinguished 
man  among  them  who  would  not  say,  that  to  wash 
was  the  true  idea  conveyed  in  Scripture  by  the  word 
baptizo.  And  again,  I  will  venture  there  is  not  a  man 
of  note  among  Paedobaptists,  who  admits  immersion  to 
be  valid  baptism,  because  of  the  mode^  simply.  To  say 
we  silently  admit  it,  is  true,  but  not  because  of  the 
MODE,  as  we  shall  show  in  due  time. 


LETTER  XVI. 

E\CH  PASSAGE  ON  BAPTISJI  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
TAKE^N  Ur  IN  ORDER. 

We  shall  now  take  up  each  case  of  baptism  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament,  in  order.  So  take  your 
Bibles,  and  see  for  yourselves.     As  Dr.  Lathrop  says — 

"The  practice  of  the  ancients  proves  all  we  contend 
for;  we  say,  that  immersion  is  not  necessary,  but  that 
affusion  is  sufficient." 

Or  as  Glass  says — "Immersion  cannot  be  called  bap- 
tism, any  other  wise  than  as  it  is  a  mode  of  washing 
with  water." 

We  shall  now  show  as  conclusively  from  Scripture, 
as  we  have  from  History,  that  to  wash,  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  is  the  true  baptism. 

The  third  of  Matthew  is  the  old  song.  Come  read 
it  once  again — "And  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins." — Verse  6.  "And  Jesus  came 
up  straightw^ay  out  of  the  water,"  &c. — "^^erse  16.  This 
is  all  that  is  said  about  baptism,  in  this  chapter.  Where 
is  the  proof  for  immersion?  Why,  in  the  two  httle 
words  Hnto^  and  'out  of.^  But  suppose  w^e  let  John  ex- 
plain these  words;  he  speaks  of  Christ's  baptism,  and 
these  same  things,  chapter  1 :  28,  saying — "These  things 
were  done  in  Bdhahara  beyond  Jordan^  zchcre  John  was 
haptizing,''^  Thus,  he  says,  John  baptized  beyond,  or 
on  the  other  side  of  Jordan,  in  or  at  the  town  of  Betha- 
bara.  And  in  chapter  10,  verse  40,  he  says  of  Christ 
■ — "And  he  ^vent  away  again,  beyond  Jordan,  into  the 
place  where  John    at   first   baptized,   and    there    he 


abode."  Then  John  baptized  in  a  place  beyond^ 
or  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan,  but  not  in  the  river,  as 
some  say.  Does  John  contradict  Matthew?  By  no 
means;  but  he  explains  the  matter  more  fully.  We  can 
reconcile  them;  but  those  who  contend  for  immersion 
cannot,  for  the  life  of  them.  Just  let  John's  words 
stand  as  they  are,  and  render  Matthew's  as  they  should 
be,  ^at  Jordan^''  and  'from  the  water,'  and  the  case  is 
plain  enough.  But  you  cannot  alter  John's  words — 
tbey  are  not  susceptible  of  it. 

Again:  Christ  was  baptized,  '/o  fiilfil  all  righteous- 
ness^'' or  the  law  requiring  it.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his 
new  version,  renders  it,  'ratify  every  iiistitution,''  What 
institution  w^as  Christ's  baptism  to  fulfil?  Then  Christ 
was  not  baptized  for  the  same  end  that  we  are,  but  to 
make  good  what  the  law  required.  But  what  did  the 
law  require?  Turn  to  Numbers  7:  8 — "And  thus  thou 
shalt  do  unto  them,  to  cleanse  them;  sprinkle  water  of 
purifying  upon  them."  Thus  Christ  demanded  of  John 
baptism  to  fulfil  this  righteousness  of  the  law,  called 
Sprinkling  water  of  purification,'  or  baptism.  Then 
suppose  they  went  into  the  Jordan,  and  came  up  out 
of  it,  John  did  not  fulfil  'the  righteousness'  required  by 
the  law,  unless  he  sprinkled  the  water  of  baptism  upon  him. 
This  is  believed  by  many  of  the  most  learned  men  to 
ha,ve  been  the  true  way  in  which  John  did  baptize,  as 
we  showed  in  the  last  letter.  Dr.  I/ightfoot  says,  on 
Luke  3:  16 — "As  it  is  beyond  a  doubt,  that  John  took 
those  whom  he  baptized  into  the  river;  so  it  is  scarcely 
less  certain,  that  he  there  sprinkled  them  with  water,'^ 

So  Aurelius: — '*Perfundit  fuvio,'  'he  poured  water  on 
them  in  the  river, '^ 


122 

The  followers  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  who  live  in 
Mesopotamia,  as  mentioned  bj  Mr.  Wolfe,  the  Mission- 
ary, volume  2,  page  311,  so  practice  now.  Mr.  Wolfe 
asked  about  their  mode  of  baptism,  and  was  answered — 

'•The  Priests  or  Bishops  baptize  children  thirty  days 
old.  They  take  the  child  to  the  banks  of  the  river:  a 
relative  or  friend  holds  the  child  near  the  surface  of 
the  water,  while  the  Priest  sprinkles  the  clement  upon  the 
child,  and  with  prayers  they  name  the  child."  Mr. 
Wolfe  asked — "Why  do  they  baptize  in  rivers?*'  An- 
swer— "Because  St.  John  the  Baptist  baptized  or  sprin- 
kled in  the  river  Jordan."  This  we  showed  in  Letter 
X,  to  be  the  custom  of  the  Greeks  and  Muscovites. 

Then,  all  that  is  said  in  the  3rd  of  Matthew,  the  1st 
(^hapter  of  Mark,  and  other  parts  of  the  Gospels,  about 
John's  baptizing,  is  plainly  in  favour  of  the  m.ode  of 
sprinkling,  and  there  is  not  one  word  nor  hint  about 
immersion  in  all  the  Gospels.  Is  it  not  weakness,  in 
the  extreme,  to  infer  the  mode  of  baptism  from  two 
preprositions,  'into^  and  'out  of  and  they  rendered  con- 
trary to  their  general  meaning?  As  a  specimen,  apo, 
rendered,  in  Matthew  3:  16,  'out  of  occurs  423  times 
in  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  is  translated  from,  335 
times;  of,  92  times;  out  of  42  times.  So  that,  from  is 
the  true  general  meaning  of  the  word.  Verse  7;  'flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come,'  not  'out  of  So  Matthew  1 : 
17 — "All  the  generations,  from  Abraham  to  David — 
from  David  unto  Babylon — ^rom  Babylon  unto  Christ." 
So  Luke  4:  1 — "Jesus  returned /rom  Jordan."  Mark 
\\\from  and  to  are  corresponding  words  to  express  mo- 
tion to  and  from  a  place,  a  time,  a  circumstance,  and 
such    like.     So   John    baptized  Christ  by  'sprinkling 


123 

water  of  purifying  upon  him,'  and  he  went  up  straight- 
way, {apo  toil  hudatos)  'from  the  zvater.^  In  Mark  1,  it 
says:  'John  baptized  in  Jordan.'  So  Matthew  3:  6. 
Now,  this  word  (en,)  rendered  in,  is,  in  these  same  chap- 
ters, rendered  'with  water,'  and  'with  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
Verse  11 — "I  indeed  baptize  you  zcith  water;  but  he 
shall  baptize  you,  (en)  rcith  the  Holy  Ghost."  8o  it  is 
translated  zvith  42  times  in  the  Bible,  and  at  56  times. 
So  to  make  Matthew*  agree  with  John,  we  say,  'were 
baptized  at  Jordan.' 

'Why  should  men  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  with  fire,'  and  then  baptized  iii  water,  when  'the 
spirit,  the  water  and  blood'  agree  in  one  mode  of  ap- 
plication ?  It  is  not  the  case,  because  John  says,  'I  in- 
deed baptize  you  wdth  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you 
with,  (not  in)  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire.' — ^Mat.  3: 
11.  Then,  Acts  2:  17,  it  was  by  pouring;  so  that  the 
word  with  is  as  strongly  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  as  in  is 
of  I3IMERSION.  But  WO  uccd  uot  Spend  time  on  these 
plain  prepositions. 

Another  passage  claimed  to  prove  immersion,  is 
John  3:  23. — "And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon, 
near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  (udata  polla)  much 
water  there;  and  they  came  and  were  baptized.  Then 
there  arose  a  question,  between  some  of  John's  disci- 
ples and  the  Jews,  about  purifying,  or  baptizing."  If 
you  could  render  these  words,  'deep  waters^  instead  of 
'many  nvulets  or  streams,'  it  would  look  something  like 
immersion.  But  what  is  Enon?  A  river,  a  lake,  or  a 
town  ?  Mr.  Robinson,  the  Baptist  author,  says,  "Salim 
was  50  miles  north,  up  Jordan,  from  w^here  John  be- 
gan to  baptize.     Enon,  near  to  it,  was  either  a  natural 


spring  or  artificial  reservoir,  or  a  cavernous  temple  of 
ihc  sun,  [or  a  town.]  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  is  the 
precise  meaning  of  the  word  Enon,  and  it  is  not  cer- 
tain whether  the  plain  meaning  be  not,  John  was  bap- 
tizhig  at  tlie  Dover  Springs,  near  Salim,  or  at  the  sun 
fountain,  near  Salim.' "  Then  Enon  is  not  a  liver,  as 
many  liave  supposed;  and,  even  Mr*  Robinson  can 
only  conjecture  that  'John  baptized  at  the  fountain.' 
He  knows  not  where;  then,  of  course,  he  did  not  dip. 

In  II  Chronicles,  33:  3,  4,  the  little  brooks  and 
fountains  that  could  be  stopped,  are  called  'much  wa- 
ter;' why  not  then  be  'many  small  rivulets?'  But  how- 
ever much  water  there  may  have  been,  there  is  noth- 
ing said  of  the  mode;  yet  in  the  question,  between 
John's  disciples  and  the  Jews,  about  purifying  or  bap- 
tism, that  arose  here  at  this  time,  w^e  may  get  some 
light  on  it.  The  mode  or  meaning  of  purifying,  we 
have  shown,  over  and  again  in  these  Letters,  to  have 
been,  Numbers  7:  8,  'sprinkling  water  of  purifying  on 
them.'  This  was,  doubtless,  the  manner  here  also. — 
All  that  can  be  infercd  from  this  can  never  prove  im- 
mersion. 

Leaving  out  the  commission  of  Christ,  which  we 
have  shown  was  only  commanding  what  Isaiah  had 
foretold,  52:  15,  'so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations;' 
Christ  says:  'Go  baptize  all  nations,' — thus  calling  Isa- 
iah's SPRINKLING  'baptizing,'  and  his  'many  nations,' 
'ALL  NATIONS,'  that  should  be  baptized  and  converted^ 
the  next  case  in  order  is  that  of  the  3000  at  Pentecost- 
That  the  Apostles  were  baptized  at  Pentecost  by  the 
•pouring  out  of  the  spirit'  is  declared  in  Acts  1:  5  com- 
pared with  2:  17,  as  above  shown.  And  John,  in  Mat- 


1:25 

thew  3:  11,  says  that  he  baptized  in  the  same  manner, 
and  so  should  all  be,  by  the  Holy  Spirit.     Thus: 

"I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water;  he  shall  baptize 
(in  the  same  manner)  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

x\nd  when  it  comes,  behold  it  is  pouring.  It  was 
the  opinion  and  belief  of  the  ancients,  that  these  3000 
were  all  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. — Zinchy, 
Lib.  1,  says: — "The  three  thousand  were  baptized  no 
other  way  than  by  the  sprinkling  of  water." 

Lyndwood,  Bonaventura,  Nicholas,  Chamier  and 
many  others,  say  the  same,"  says  Pond,  page  40.  On 
the  same  page,  he  also  says,  "On  the  whole  I  cannot 
doubt  that  the  three  thousand  were  baptized  by  the 
Apostles  the  same  day  they  believed,  and  that  the  ordi- 
nance 7ms  administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  In  this 
opinion  I  am  happy  to  concur  with  many  eminent  and 
learned  writers." 

But  all  the  circumstances  render  it  impossible  that 
they  could  have  been  immersed.  Dr.  Miller  says:  "At 
that  season  of  the  year  there  was  no  liver  or  brook  in 
the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem,  that  would 
admit  of  immersing  a  human  being." 

The  river  Jordan  was  25  miles  off,  the  two  little 
brooks,  GiHON  and  Kedron,  (if  even  they  had  a  suffi- 
ciency of  water,  were  wholly  unsuitable  for  this  pur- 
pose, from  the  blood  and  filth  of  the  city  at  that  time,) 
are  the  only  streams  near  the  city;  and  all  the  baths 
and  pools  were  in  the  possession  of  the  Jews,  the  chief 
priests  and  scribes,  who  would  never  permit  "this  sect 
of  upstarts,"  as  they  called  them,  to  pollute  them  by 
baptizing  in  them.  Where,  then,  could  all  twelve 
Apostles,  much  less  the  120  disciples,  have  found  water 


126 

and  room  sufficient  to  immerse  the  3000  in  the  morn- 
ing, and  the  5000  more  in  the  evening,  converted 
when  Peter  and  John  preached  at  the  beautiful  gate 
and  cured  the  lame  man  ?  The  immersion  of  these  eight 
thousand,  under  such  circumstances,  would  have  been 
as  great  a  miracle  as  Chnst's  feeding  the  5000  with  two 
loaves.  Do  our  opponents  contend  it  was  done  by 
miracle  ?     If  so,  we  yield. 

We  hear  nothing  of  changing  clothes  and  going  to 
the  water.  It  is  moreover  physically  impossible,  even 
if  all  twelve  Apostles  had  officiated,  for  them  to  have 
immersed  3000  persons  in  the  five  or  six  hours  that  re- 
mained after  Peter's  sermon.  To  immerse  a  single 
person  will  require  five  or  six  minutes,  so  to  immerse 
100  would  require  nine  or  ten  hours.  But  did  the 
Apostles  stand  in  the  water  for  nine  or  ten  hours  at 
once,  immersing  all  the  time?  No  man  on  earth  could 
endure  such  exhausting  labor  so  long.  A  writer  who 
saw  47  dipped  at  once,  saw  the  first  minister  dip  25, 
when  he  was  so  exhausted  and  fatigued  that  he  had  to 
give  up  to  another  to  finish  the  22.  And  each  one, 
was  not  only  fatigued,  but  they  were  more  than  five 
minutes  dipping  each  person  or  going  through  all  the 
operations.  vSo  of  John's  dipping  all  Hhe  500,000  per- 
sons' as  the  Baptists  say.  But  if  he  dipped  one  a  min- 
ute, he  must  have  been  in  the  water  for  15  hours  daily, 
for  one  year  and  a  half.  During  his  whole  ministry 
what  time  could  he  have  had  to  preach?  Can  immrr- 
siojiists  beUeve  this?     Who  can  behcve  it? 


LETTER  XVII. 

APOSTOLIC  BAPTISM  IN  THE  ACTS,  ALL  BY  SPRINKLING, 
AND  ALL  IN  HOUSES,  BUT  ONE  IN  THE  DESERT. 

The  case  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch— Acts  8:  26, 40 
— comes  next  in  order.  This  has  always  been  relied 
on  as  the  strongest  proof  in  the  Bible  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion, but  to  me  it  is  conclusive  in  favor  of  sprink- 
ling. Philip  comes  to  a  man  passing  a  desert,  reading 
Isaiah  53:  7;  the  man  asks  him  to  ride  with  him,  *and 
Philip  began  at  the  same  Scripture  and  preached  unto 
him  Christ.'  Now  turn  to  Isaiah,  and  you  will  find  in 
the  same  paragraph  the  Eunuch  was  reading,  these 
words  refering  to  Christ — 'So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations.'  This  is  the  only  part  or  word  that  says  any 
thing  about  baptism,  and  from  this,  doubtless,  the  Eu- 
nuch took  the  idea  of  being  baptized.  Now,  says  the 
Eunuch,  if  Christ  is  to  'sprinkle  or  baptize  many- 
nations,'  see,  here  is  some  water,  what  doth  hinder 
me  to  be  baptized;  and  Philip  said,  if  thou  believcst 
with  all  thy  heart  thou  may  est.  And  he  said,  I  be- 
lieve Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  com- 
manded the  chariot  to  stand  still,  and  'they  went  down, 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  into  the  water,  and  he 
baptized  or  sprinkled  him.'  Where  is  the  proof  for 
immersion?  Why,  they  went  down  from  the  chariot 
to  the  water,  and  he  sprinkled  him,  and  they  came  up 
from  the  water.  Suppose,  however,  they  went  actually 
into  the  water — which  I  can't  believe — still  he  bap- 
tized or  sprinkled  him,  if  he  acted  Scripturally,  for  the 
text  said  he  should    'sprinkle'  him.     Then,  the  Scrip- 


1^ 

ture  which  prophecied,  that  Christ  should  sprinkle,  is 
here  fulfilled  by  baptism.  For  is  it  reasonable,  that 
Philip  dissented  from  his  text,  which  taught  sprinkhng, 
and  immersed  the  Eunuch  ?  It  is  certainly  very  unfortu- 
nate for  those  who  immerse,  that  the  Eunuch  was  reading 
this  very  Scripture  which  so  fully  settles  the  mode  of 
BAPTISM  to  be  SPRINKLING — othcrwisc  it  would  seem 
quite  probable  from  our  English  Bible,  that  the  Eunuch 
was  immersed.  But  it  is  now  too  plain  that  he  was 
baptized  by  sprinkling,  or  the  prophecy  was  not  fulfill- 
ed. And  here  remark,  that  all  the  prophets  prophecy 
of  BAPTis3f,  and  call  it  sprinkling  or  pouring,  invaria- 
bly. Ezekiel,  36:  25,  records  the  same  with  Isaiah — 
'^Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  yo 
shall  be  clean.  A  new  heart  will  I  give  you,  and  a 
new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you."  Now,  says  the  Eu- 
nuch, if  he  is  to  give  me  a  new  heart  and  sprinkle  me, 
here  is  water,  why  may  I  not  be  baptized.  But 'into* 
and  'out  of,'  are  the  strong  holds  of  those  who  say  our 
English  Bible  needs  improving;  then  let  us  examine 
the  oriirinal.  The  word  eis  rendered  'into'  here,  is 
rendered  'a^,'  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  fifty-six  times — 
/o,  one  hundred  and  eighty-eight  times,  and  is  transla- 
ted by  seventeen  different  words.  The  word  cis  occurs 
teM  times  in  the  8th  chapter  of  Acts,  and  is  not  render- 
ed 'into'  but  in  one  case,  and  that  is  the  38th  verse. 
Thus,  verse  40 — 'Philip  was  found  at  Azotus.'  This 
is  the  same  word,  why  not  say,  'Philip  was  found  mta 
Azotus?'  'The  other  disciple  did  out-run  Peter,  and 
came  first  to  the  sepulchre,  yet  went  he  not  m.' — John 
20:  4,  5.  Here  it  expressly  says  the  word  means  to 
come  TO,  but  not  to  go  into.     So  Philip  and  the  Eu- 


129 

nuch  went  to,  but  not  into  the  water.  Suppose  it  had 
been  said,  as  it  is  above — 'they  went  down  to  the  water, 
vet  went  they  not  into  the  v/ater' — would  that  prove 
the  Eunuch  was  not  immersed?  If  so,  then  it  is  all  we 
ask;  for  this  is  the  truth,  and  the  words  might  have 
been  so  rendered.  IMr.  Campbell,  in  his  new  version* 
renders  e?"s,  in  this  same  chapter,  to  and  at  nine  times, 
and  into  only  in  this  one  verse.  And  so  he  renders  it 
in  most  cases  where  baptism  is  not  concerned.  See 
the  1st  chapter  of  Matthew.  But  here  bear  in  mind, 
that  when  eis  signitics  into  a  place,  it  is  generally  repeat- 
ed or  twice  used;  but  when  it  signihes  to  or  at  a  place, 
but  once,  and  this  is  always  the  case  when  in  connex- 
ion with  the  verb,  crchomai,  Ho  go  or  enter;'  so  that,  if 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  had  gone  into  the  water,  c/v 
would  have  been  repeated,  but  it  is  not  so  in  the  origi- 
nal, for  it  occurs  but  once.  To  illustrate  it,  sec  Mat- 
thew 7:  21 — "Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me  Lord, 
Lord,  shall  enter  into  (cisdthe  cis)  the  Kingdom  of  God.'' 
So  Matthew  12:  4 — 'David  (ciselthen  cis)  entered  into 
the  house  of  God.'  So  cis  occurs  twice  instead  of  once, 
and  so  in  the  following  instances,  out  of  hundreds  that 
might  be  cited:  Matthew  QSv,  Mark  1:  21,  45 — 2:  1 
—5:  12;  Luke  1:  9—8:  30,  33—9:  34—10:  38—18: 
17.  This  may  be  called  a  general  rule,  though  it  has 
exceptions.  See  the  9th  chapter  of  Acts  where  the 
same  thing  twice  occurs  in  the  case  of  Paul's  baptism: 
verse  17,  Ananias  "entered  into  the  house,"  (eisalfhon 
eis  tan  oikian.  And  in  verse  6 — '-Eiselthe  eis  tan  polin 
— {go  into  the  cityy)  Here  cis  is  twice  used,  and  so  would 
it  be  in  8:  38  if  the  Eunuch  had  gone  into  the  water; 
but  it  is  not  so — he  only  went  to  it.     Tliis,  then,  fuily 

9 


130 

determines  the  matter,  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  did 
not  go  down  into,  but  simply,  'down  from  the  char- 
iot (eis)  TO  THE  WATER,  and  he  baptized  or  spri?ikled  him^ 
and  they  came  up  (ck)  prom  the  water.'  Then  this 
great  argument  for  immersion  really  proves  sprinkling. 
The  baptism  of  Paul,  Acts  9;  18,  and  22:  16— "He 
received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  {anastas^  stood  up) 
and  was  baptized."  So,  in  the  22nd  chapter  and  16th 
verse,  it  says;  'Arise  and  be  baptized.'  Here  anastas 
is  rendered  arise:  but  notice;  it  was  all  done  in  the 
house,  and  they  did  not  leave  it  to  go  off  to  hunt  wa- 
ter. To  show  you  that  the  word  does  mean  to  arise^ 
or  stand  still  in  a  place,  refer  to  the  following  pas- 
sages:— "Jesus  stood  up  for  to  read." — Luke  4:  16. — 
'Peter  took  him  up,  saying,  stand  i/jo.' — Acts  10:  26. 
*  Jesus  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  lifted  .him  up,  and  he 
i-tood  np.^ — Mark  9:  27.  'And  there  stood  up  one  of 
them,  Agabus,  and  signified.' — Acts  11 :  28.  The  same 
word  is  used  in  all  these  cases,  and  should  be  rendered 
'standing  up.'  None  of  these  men  rose  up  to  walk 
away,  but  stood  up  to  speak,  to  act,  as  Paul  'in  the 
house  of  Judas'  (Acts  9:  18)  stood  up  and  was  baptized, 


This  is  a  most  conclusive  proof,  that  Paul  was  bap- 
tized, standing  up  in  the  house,  and  that  water  was  ap- 
plied to  him,  not  he  to  the  water.  But  some  ask,  why 
need  he  get  up  to  be  sprinkled?  could  it  not  be  done 
as  he  sat  or  lay  down?  To  this  we  may  reply  by  the 
question,  could  he  have  been  immersed,  standing  up? 
Standing  or  kneeling  was  the  true  posture  of  the  body 
in  prayer,  as  well  as  all  other  worship  among  the  Jews. 
So    Paul  arose  either  to  stand  or  to  kneel    down,  the 


131 

most  humble  position.  And  so  we  say  to  men  in  the 
<:hurch,  arise,  stand,  or  kneel  down,  and  be  baptized, 
for  all  who  are  so  baptized  follow  the  great  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles.  Is  it  likely  that  Paul,  who  was  baptized 
standing  up  in  the  house,  would  teach  immersion  as 
true  baptism  under  the  figure  of  burying,  m  Rom.  6th? 

In  the  10th  of  Acts  we  have  the  Gospel  church  open- 
ed by  Peter  to  the  Gentiles,  and  Cornelius  and  all  his 
household  baptized  in  the  house  vrhere  the  Apostle 
preached  to  them.  Peter  preached,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them.  ^Then  Peter  answered,  can  any 
man  forbid  water,  [to  be  brought]  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Gliost  a? 
well  as  we?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord.' — Verse  47.  That  the  water 
was  brought,  and  this  man  and  his  all  baptized  in  the 
house,  where  the  spirit  fell  on  them,  is  more  natural  and 
probable.  It  is  the  only  natural  construction  of  the 
language — nothing  could  be  plainer,  than  that  the  icci- 
ter  was  brought  into  the  house,  and  this  first  of  all  Geii- 
tiles  baptized  by  applying  it  to  him  and  his  family,  as 
it  was  to  the  Jews  first  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. — 
There  is  not,  in  this  case,  the  least  evidence,  what- 
ever, in  favor  of  immersion,  but  conclusive  evidence 
against  it. 

The  case  of  Lydia,  Acts  16:  15,  is  also  fiiUy  in  favor 
of  sprinkling,  or  of  baptism  performed  in  the  house  of 
prayer,  where  Paul  preached.  "A  certain  woman 
named  Lydia,  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  tliat  she 
attended  to  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul: — 
And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she 
besought  us,*'  &c.     This  case  of  household  baptism, 


132 

which  is  the  same  as  infant  baptism,  has  alwa}  s  been- 
greatly  in  the  way  of  immemonists ;  because  it  is  most 
conclusively  against  their  practice,  and  in  favor  of  our?;. 
'For,  if  it  proves  infant  baptism,'  says  one,  'then  we 
admit  it  proves  also  sprinkling  or  pouring,  because 
we  admit  these  two  always  go  together.'  This  is  ad- 
mitting a  great  deal.  That  the  above  is  a  case  of 
household  baptism,^  is  admitted  by  the  two  champions 
of  immersion.  Indeed,  no  one  can  deny  it,  unless  they 
deny  the  language  of  the  15th  verse. 

In  the  33d  verse  of  this  same  chapter,  the  Jailors 
baptism  is  mentioned,  as  taking  place,  in  the  outer  pri- 
so)i,  about  mid-night.  He  had  'thrust  them  into  the 
inner  prison' — verse  24;  and  at  mid-night  he  heard  tlicm. 
sing,  and  after  the  earthquake,  'he  sprang  in  and  brought 
them  out'  of  the  inner  prison — verse  30.  "And  he  took 
them,  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their 
stripes;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway.*' 
— verse  33.  Do  not  all  these  circumstances  make  it 
plain,  that  this  baptism  took  place  in  the  outer  prison, 
at  mid-night?  Just  as  St.  Lawrence,  158  years  after 
tins,  says — -'One  of  the  soldiers  being  converted,  brought 
di  pitcher  of  water  into  the  prison^ — for  Lawrence  to  bap- 
tize him  with.  Or  as  Eusebius  says  of  Basilides  in 
prisori — 'On  this  the  ])rethrcn  gave  him  the  seal  of  the 
Lord,'  (baptism.)  Mark  it;  all  in  the  prison. 

Here,  then,  are  five  cases  more  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  all  of  which  arc  strongly  in  favor  of  pouring 
or  sprinkling,  and  all  performed  in  the  house,  except  one. 
which  took  place  in  the  desert  of  Gaza;  in  which  there 
is  no  stream  for  immersion,  and  but  few  rivulets  at 
which  water  can  be  obtained. 


133 

The  case  of  Crispus  and  his  house,  and  the  Coiin- 
ihians,  Acts  18:  7,  8,  all  of  whom  were  baptized  in  the 
house  of  Justus,  is  of  the  same  nature,  and,  conclusively, 
in  favor  of  baptism  being  performed  in  'the  house,  join- 
ed hard  to  the  synagogue  or  cluirch,'  which  is  the  pro- 
per place  for  it. 

These  are  all  the  cases  in  Acts,  which  is  the  only 
inspired  Church  History  we  have.  Where,  then,  is  the 
evidence  for  immersion?  JVot  here.  Then  we  have 
ibund  no  immersion  to  the  end  of  Acts. 


LETTER   XVITL 

THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM  IN  THE  EPISTLES  SHOWN 
TO    BE    SPRINKLING. 

IIavinc  found  all  the  cases  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles against  immersion,  and  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  we 
shall  continue  our  investigations  on  through  the  Epistles, 

Tiic  6th  chapter  of  Romans  is  often  quoted  to  prove 
immersion  to  be  the  iiK)de  of  baptism,  but  I  must  con- 
fess I  am  too  blunt  to  apprehend  it.  Paul  is  showing 
that  Christians  cannot  live  in  the  habitual  commission 
of  sin,  but  must  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  holiness. — 
^How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer 
therein?  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  [what!  immersed  into  him?] 
were  baptized  into  his  death.  Therefore,  we  are  buried 
with  him,  by  baptism,  into  death,  [not  into  water,]  that 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of 
the  Father,  even  so  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life^ 
— not  be  raised  up  out  of  the  water.  Now,  the  paral- 
lel passage,  in  Colossians  2:  11,  12, shows  this  to  be  not 
WATER  baptism,  but  spiritual  baptism,  or  'circumcis- 
ion made  without  hands.' — "In  whom  we  are  circum- 
cised with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in 
putting  off  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of 
Christ.  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye 
are  raised  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation 
of  God." 

Water  is  never  mentioned  in  either  place,  nor  is 
water  baptism  even  refered  to.  But  it  is  contrary  to 
all  rules  of  interpretation  to  take  one  part  of  a  passage 


135 

literally,  and  the  other  part  figuratively.  Then,  if  the 
4th  verse  of  vi.  Romans  means  a  literal  burying  in  wa- 
ter, the  5th  verse  must  mean  a  literal  planting  in  the 
grave,  and  the  6th  verse  a  literal  crucifying  with  Christ, 
on  the  cross;  for  all  these  Words  and  figin-es  are  here 
used,  and  they  must  be  put  in  their  true  order,  thus: — 

1.  We  must  be  literally  crucified; 

2,  We  must  be  literally  planted; 

3*  Literally  buried,  and  that  in  literal  earth.  Then, 
all  who  contend  for  this  proving  immersion  must  be 
crucified  and  planted,  before  buried  in  death;  and,  af- 
ter all,  there  is  no  water.  But  if  you  take  the  true 
meaning  of  the  passage,  it  is  beautifully  figurative,  and 
means  that  we  must  'crucify  the  flesh  with  the  affec- 
tions and  lusts ;'  and  this  is  fully  illustrated  by  the  three 
strong  figures  here  used.  How  strange,  that  any  body 
could  ever  strain  a  figure  so  outrageously ! 

Who  would  ever  understand  Paul  literally,  when  he 
says — 'we  are  dead  to  sin?'  Does  he  mean  so  dead, 
that  we  cannot  sin?  Who  understands  him  literally, 
when  he  speaks  of  'the  death  of  the  old  man,  and  life 
of  the  new  man?'  Do  not  all  know,  that  such  expres- 
sions are  figurative? 

A  late  zealous  advocate  for  immersion  says: — "There 
is  no  allusion  to  immersion  in  the  6th  chapter  of  Ro- 
mans— both  the  death  and  burial  of  the  believer  are 
figurative." 

If,  however,  our  opponents  will  have  it  literally, 
then  let  them  begin  aright,  and  first  be  crucified  be- 
fore buried,  and  then  lie  in  the  water  three  days,  and 
I  shall  think  them  in  earnest. 

But  suppose  the  text  means  to  be  literally  buried: 


136 

(hen  the  question  returns,  how?  Why  like  Christ  was. 
But  Christ  was  not  buried  in  the  earth,  as  we  now  bury. 
The  Romans,  to  whom  Paul  wrote,  did  not  bury  men 
in  earth — they  buried  the  bodies,  or  like  the  Jews,  de- 
posited them  in  caves  or  sepulchres,  like  that  new  tomb 
of  Joseph  in  which  Christ  was  laid.  Christ  vras  laid 
in  the  niche  of  a  tornb,  and  a  rock  rolled  to  the  door; 
;ind  any  person  might  walk  in  this  tomb,  as  the  two 
young  men  or  angels  did,  and  see  Christ  all  the  time, 
as  he  lay  in  the  tomb.  Can  we  see  a  man  when  bu- 
ried in  the  earth,  or  one  when  immersed  or  wholJy 
put  under  the  water?  You  may  as  well  say,  I  am  im- 
mersed, because  I  am  in  this  room  and  the  door  is  shut. 
Or  that  the  Jailor  was  in  the  inner  prison,  when  shut 
— as  some  wish  to  make  us  believe  the  Apostles  were, 
;it  Pentecost,  or  the  Israelites  at  the  sea,  when  walking 
on  dry  ground.  But  I  will  not  spend  time  upon  a  mat- 
ter that  has  no  reference,  whatever,  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, but  is  merely  an  illustration  of  our  sanctification. 

Professor  Stuart,  who  is  quoted  by  immersionists  on 
all  occasions,  says,  "There  is  no  more  reference  to  the 
mode  of  baptism  here  than  to  the  mode  of  the  resurrection. 
The  v/hole  is  a  moral,  spiritual,  not  litcj-al  baptism." 
Will  they  believe  their  own  favorite  ? 

In  the  10th  of  I  Corinthians,  it  says:  *'A11  our  Fa- 
thers were  under  the  cloud  [not  immersed  in  it]  and 
all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Now,  Exodus 
14:  22 — ''The  children  of  Israel  went  into  the  midst 
of  the  sea  upon  dry  ground."  And  David  says — "The 
waters  saw  thee,  O  God — the  watei-s  saw  thee;  the 
depths  also  were  troubled — the  clouds  poured  out  the 


137 

water. "-^Psalms  77:  17.  This  pouring  out  of  water* 
Paul  calls  baptism — and  this  baptism  was  performed  as 
they  stood  or  'walked  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  on  dry 
ground.'     Could  one  be  immersed  on  dry  ground? 

This  is  an  argument  no  one  has  ever  answered,  and 
all  the  attempts  to  show  that  the  water  on  each  side, 
and  the  cloud  on  the  top,  immersed  them,  only  help  to 
show  off  to  a  better  advantage  the  argument  for  pour- 
ing. Is  it  not  rather  strange,  that  the  advocates  for 
immersion,  who  deny  there  ever  was  any  baptism  till 
1:he  days  of  John,  should  find  in  this  occurence,  which 
took  place  thousands  of  years  before  John  was  born 
and  before  the  days  of  Christianity,  the  zvhole  ordinance 
of  baptism  performed  upon  two  or  three  millions  of 
men,  women,  and  children  in  mass,  with  their  cattle, 
flocks,  wagons,  &c.  6z:c.,  and  all  immersed  too  in  a 
cloud,  and  while  upon  dry  ground?  Were  they  all 
taken  up  and  dipped  or  plunged  into  the  water  '''•upon 
dry  ground  i*" — ivas  the  zcater  applied  to  them,  or  they  to 
the  water?  Paul  says  they  were  not  into  the  cloud  but 
^'widcr  the  cloud;"  and  David  says,  ''the  cloud  poured 
out  ■water^''  which  Paul  calls  their  baptism.  The  immer- 
sionists  ought  never  quote  this  passage — it  is  entirely 
too  ancient  for  them.  What  is  it,  that  imagination  can- 
not do?  What  will  those,  who  deny  all  Jezvish  baptism, 
do  with  this  passage?  This  was  not  written  in  the  12th 
century,  nor  by  the  Rabbies,  yet  they  all  quote  it  to 
prove  Jewish  and  proselyte  baptism.  Paul,  generally, 
calls  things  by  their  right  names — so  his  calling  this 
pouring  out  of  water  upon  Israel,  baptism,  is  satisfac- 
tory to  me. 

'One  faith,  one  Lord,  one  baptism' — Eph.  4:  5 — is 


138 

an  another  argument  for  immersion.  Paul  tells  them 
Ho  endeavor  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  spiiit  in  the  bond 
of  peace,'  and  shows  them  the  seven  cords  to  bind  them 
together: 

1.  One  body,  or  one  church; 

2.  One  spirit; 
3*  One  hope; 
4*  One  Lord; 

5.  One  faith; 

6.  One  baptism,  for  Jew  and  Gentile; 

7*  One  God,  the  Father  of  Jew  and  Gentile. 

And  then,  in  I  Corinthians,  12:  13,  Paul  explains 
what  this  body  is,  and  what  this  baptism  is  also. — 'For, 
by  one  spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  (one 
church,)  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  bond  or  free.' 
Then,  this  is  spiritual  baptism  that  makes  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  bond  and  free,  members  of  one  and  the  same 
church;  showing  that  there  is  not  one  baptism  for  the 
Jew,  and  one  for  the  Gentile.  Yet  you  will  hear  some 
people  cry  out — 'one  baptism'— 'one  mode  of  baptism, 
and  that  immersion,'  as  if  Paul  ever  dreamed  of  such 
bigotry  as  fills  their  small  hearts.  This  has  nothing  to 
fo  do,  whatever,  with  the  mode  of  baptism.  _ 

Again :  Galatians  3 :  27 — 'For,  as  many  of  you  .  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ,'  by 
profession.  And  some  are  so  shrewd  as  to  say  this 
means  'we  must  put  Christ  on  all  over,  as  we  do  a 
suit  of  clothes,  or  we  cannot  be  baptized.'  That  Paul 
means  we  should  put  on  the  temper,  disposition,  and 
spirit  of  Christ,  as  well  as  the  profession^  is  sufficiently 
clear  from  the  parallel  verse,  Rom.  13: 14 — 'Put  ye  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make  no  provision  for  the 


139 

flesh.^  As  to  seeing  any  mode  of  baptism  here,  it  remains 
for  those  who  can  see  and  find  a  mode  whenever  bap- 
tism is  even  hinted  at. 

Without  tediously   dwelHng  upon  every  irrelevant 
passage,!  Peter 3:  21  is  thought  to  prove  immersion— 
''The  Hke  figure  whereunto  baptism  doth  now  save  us, 
(not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  an- 
swer of  a  good  conscience  to  God,)  by  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ."     There  is  nothing  said  here  in  refer- 
ence  to  mode,  but  if  baptism  is  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience,'  and  we  can  ascertain  how  the  good  (i.  e., 
purified,  purged,)  conscience  is  obtained,  we  may  learn 
something  of  the  mode  of  baptism.     Now  in  Hebrews 
10:  22  we  read,  'having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  [to    a  good]    conscience,  and    our  bodies   washed 
with  pure  water;'— to  sprinkle  from  an  evil  to  a  good 
conscience  is  to  purify,  to  purge.  The  good  conscience, 
then,  is  obtained  by  sprinkling,   and  so  is    the  body 
washed  with,  or  by  'sprinkling  clear  or  pure  water  up- 
on it.'     As  the  heart  is  cleansed  by  sprinkling,  so  must 
the  body  be  purified;   and  as  Mr.  Gale  says,   'what  is 
true  of  any  one  part  of  the  body  is  true  of  the  whole,' 
_or  as  Christ  told  Peter,  'he    that  is  washed  [in    one 
part]  is  clean  every  whit,'  so,  to  sprinkle  water  on  the 
forehead  is  to  wash  tlie  body  with  pure  water,  which  is 
the  true  baptism. 

In  I.  John  5:  8  it  is  said,  "For  there  are  three  that 
bear  witness  in  earth,  the  spirit,  and  the  water,  and 
the  BLOOD,  and  these  three  agree  in  one."  In  one  what? 
In  one  mode  of  application.  The  spirit  is  always 
POURED,  the  blood  is  always  sprinkled,  and  must  not 
the    water  be    poured  or   sprinkled  also?      Can  any 


140 

man  say  that  this  is  not  the  truth  of  the  word  of  God? 
The  MODE  of  these  three  must  agree  or  correspond: 
but  do  they  agree  in  any  other  way  than  by  sprinkhng 
or  pouring? 

Baptism  is  called  a  seal,  as  was  circumcision  to 
Abraham.  Now  the  seal  of  all  the  servants  of  God  is 
put  on  their  foreiieacs.  Rev.  7:  3 — 'Hurt  not  the 
oarth — till  w^e  have  sealed  the  servants  of  our  God  in 
their  foreheads.'  So  God  says,  'ye  shall  be  called  by 
a  NEW  NAME,  which  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  has  spoken?' 
And,  'I  will  write  upon  him  my  new  name — the  name 
t-)f  my  God.' — Rev.  3:  12.  Now  when  water  is  applied 
to  the  forehead  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  is  not  the  person  named,  or  the  new  name 
written  upon  him,  the -seal  placed  upon  the  forehead? 
But  is  this  the  case  with  immersion?  These  expres- 
sions have  a  meaning,  and  to  what  do  they  refer,  if  not 
to  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring? 

All  the  Fathers  call  baptism  'Hhc  seal  of  God,"'"^  Her- 
mas  says  "that  seal  is  baptism."  This  was  their  com- 
mon name  for  baptism.  They  who  saw  the  Apostles 
apply  the  seal  ought  to  know  what  it  was,  and  to  what 
part  of  the  body  it  was  applied.  A  seal  seldom  covers 
all  over. 


LETTER  XIX. 

THE    MENNONITES,  THE    FIRST    BAPTISTS,  HAVE    OIVEN  IP 

IMMERSION  FOR  PaURIISG;  ANCIENT  I3IMERSIONS, 

ALL.     NAKED,      AND    GIVEN    THREE    TIMES, 

FOUNDED    ON    TRADITION^ 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the  first  Anabaptists  in 
the  world,  or  their  lineal  descendants,  have  returned 
to  the  practice  of  pouring,  in  baptism,  instead  of  im- 
mersion— I  mean  the  Mennonites,  a  large  body  of  the 
Baptists  of  Holland.  They  were  ail,  in  that  country,, 
called  Mennonites  at  one  time,  who  were  in  itivonr  oi" 
immersion  and  opposed  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  The} 
were  long  the  uncompromising  advocates  for  immer- 
sion ;  ""but  for  more  than  a  hundred  years  past,  the}" 
have  given  it  up,  in  consideration  of  the  many  difficul- 
ties attending  it,'  'and  have  been  in  the  practice  of 
pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  candidate  by  the 
liand  of  an  administrator,  while  they  baptize  none  but 
adults.  They  found  that  when  candidates  for  baptism 
were  Ij'ing  on  sick  beds,  or  confined  in  prison;  or  in  a 
state  of  peculiarly  delicate  health;  or  in  various  other 
unusual  situations,  which  may  be  easily  imagined; 
there  was  so  much  difficult}^,  not  to  say,  in  some  cases. 
II  total  impossibility  in  ba^izing  by  plunging;  that 
they  deliberately,  as  a  denomination,  after  the  death 
of  their  first  leader,  agreed  to  lay  aside  the  practice  of 
immersion,  and  substitute  the  plan  of  affusion  or  pour- 
ring.'— Dr.  Miller,  page  82. 

The  difficulties^  not  to  say  impossibilities,  attending 
the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  are^  conclusive  to 


142 

my  mind  against  its  being  even  implied  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament by  our  Lord.  Who  does  not  know  that  in  large 
districts  of  country,  on  various  parts  of  the  Globe,  im- 
mersion would  be  impossible?  Not  only  do  the  dry, 
sandy  and  parched  deserts,  where  no  streams  or  water 
can  be  found,  make  it  so;  but  in  the  Polar  regions, 
during  a  greater  part  of  the  year,  the  severe  frost  and 
cold  seal  up  in  solid  ice  every  stream  and  fountain,  and 
so  make  immersion  utterly  impossible.  'In  besieged 
cities,'  says  Dr.  Austin,  'where  there  are  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  people;  in  sandy  deserts,  like  those  of 
Africa,  Arabia  and  Palestine;  in  northern  regions, 
where  the  streams,  if  there  be  any,  are  shut  up  with 
impenetrable  ice;  in  severe  and  extensive  droughts, 
like  that  which  took  place  in  the  time  of  Ahab;  suffi- 
ciency of  water  for  animal  subsistence  is  scarcely  to  be 
procured.  Now,  suppose  God  should,  according  to  his 
predictions,  pour  out  plentiful  effusions  of  his  Spirit, 
so  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  one  of  those  regions  or 
cities  should  be  born  in  a  day;  would  there  not  be  an 
absolute  impossibility  in  the  way  of  their  immersion, 
while  there  was  such  a  scarcity  of  water?  And  this 
scarcity  might  last  as  long  as  they  lived.' — Page  41. 
To  show  this  is  no  fiction,  take  two  facts: 
I.  The  fact  mentioned  by  Walker,  chapter  10,  of 
the  Jew,  60  years  after  the  Apostles,  who  was  travel- 
ling with  the  Christians,  in  the  time  of  Antonius.  He- 
was  converted,  fell  sick,  and  desired  baptism.  Not 
having  water,  they  sprinkled  him  thrice  with  sand,  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity.  He  recovered,  and  when  his 
case  was  reported  to  tlic  Bishop,  he  decided  that  the 
man  was    baptized,   if  the  water  was  poured    on  him 


143 

again.'  There  is  a  case  of  necessity,  and  it  settles  pour- 
ing  to  be  the  true  baptism. 

2.  Here  in  Kentucky,  in  the  fall  of  the  year,  I  have 
known  two  instances,  at  least,  of  delay  for  some  weeks, 
because  of  the  scarcity  of  water;  i.  e.  immersion  could 
not  be  given  in  the  ordinary  streams,  and  when  one 
case  was  attended  to,  it  was  in  a  pond,  green  on  the 
surface,  and  almost  thick  with  mud.  That  was  not 
^having  the  body  washed  with  clean  water — 'nor  clean 
water  sprinkled  upon  you,'  as  God  says  he  will  do  by 
his  ministers  (Ezekiel  36;  25)  at  baptism. 

There  are  many  other  difficulties  which  might  be 
mentioned,  showing  that  immersion  is  not  adapted  to 
the  genius  of  Christianity.  Our  religion  is  to  spreaci 
over  the  world,  'to  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  peo- 
ple, and  tongue.'  Shall  we  reflect  upon  the  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  God,  •  by  saying  he  has  attached  to 
the  Gospel  an  ordinance  that  cannot  be  attended  to, 
in  many  parts  of  the  world,  and  is  so  contrary  to  all 
other  parts  of  his  holy  religion?  No;  the  two  simple 
ordinances  are  of  universal  xVPPlication.  So  baptism, 
by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  can  be  attended  to,  with  the 
greatest  convenience  and  ease,  in  all  countries  and  at 
all  seasons.  In  all  situations  of  sickness  or  danger,  or 
in  health,  there  is  no  impediment.  'Baptism  was  made 
for  man,  not  man  for  baptism,'  and  when  it  would  be- 
rome  'a  yoke  of  bondage'  to  any  people,  to  be  com- 
pelled to  use  sucli  a  mode  as  immersion,  we  must  have 
an  express  command  for  it,  as  we  have  for  sprinkling 
in  Ezekiel  36:  25. 

When  we  contrast  the  difticulties  and  advantages  of 
the  two  modes  of  sprinkling  and  immersion,   we    can 


144 

"but  admire  the  candor  and  good  sense  of  the  Menno-^ 
nites  in  returning  to  the  good  old  practice  of  pouiing 
or  sprinkling.  We  hope  to  see  the  day  when  all  our 
Baptist  friends,  even  if  they  baptize  none  but  adults, 
will  turn  to  Hhe  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  and 
widk  therein,^  as  Jeremiah  6:  16  directs,  and  follow 
their  worthy  ancestors  in  Holland. 

Another  remarkable  fact  is,  that  immcrsioit  was  nrc- 
fv  considered  esscnlial  to  Cliristian  baptism,  till  after  the 
tilth  century.  That  there  Was  such  a  thing  as  immer- 
sion in  the  church  is  not  denied,  but  that  it  was  essential 
to  baptism,  is  the  question.  I  v»ish  it  then  to  be  borne 
in  mind,  'as  an  indisputable  fact,'  says  Pond,  Hhat  im- 
mersion never  was  considered  as  essential  to  baptism, 
till  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists,  in  the  16th  century.' 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  pouring  or  spiink- 
ling  was  required,  in  the  primitive  chujxh^  as  valid 
baptism.  The  greatest  advocates  for  immersion  ad- 
mit that  Clinics,  or  those  who  were  baptized  in  sick- 
ness, were  baptized  by  pouring  or  spiinkling.  It  is  al- 
so admitted,  that  when  they  recovered  they  were  ne\- 
er  baptized  over  again.  And  the  objections  which 
>omc  raise,  that  such  as  were  baptized  thus,  in  sickness,, 
could  not  enter  the  ministry,  is  fully  answered  by  the 
council  of  Neocesarea,  A.  D.,  313,  which  says: — 'He 
who  is  baptized  wlien  sick  ought  not  to  be  made  a 
Priest,  unless  his  diligence  and  fidelity  afterwards  do- 
prove  commendable,  or  the  scaixity  of  men  fit  foi-  the- 
oftice  require  it;  for  his  coming  to  the  faith  is  not  volun- 
ijry,  hut  from  necessity.''  This  was  the  true  reason,  and 
not  any  defect  in  their  baptism,  whatever^  Wall,  Rob- 
inson, and  all  candid  writers  in  favor  of  immersion,  ad- 


145 

mit  this.  How  comes  it  to  pass,  then,  that  immersion 
became  essential  to  baptism  sixteen  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  when  it  never  zvas  before?  Let  those  who  say  it 
is  now  essential  show  us  an  instance  of  it  before  the 
Reformation,  if  they  can.     It  cannot  be  done. 

Nothing  is  more  common,  than  for  immersionists  to 
refer  to  the  early  history  of  the  church  to  prove  immer- 
sion to  be  Scriptural  baptism^  They  often,,  with  an 
air,  cite  the  Fathers  of  the  second  century,  while  they 
are  very  loth  to  let  us  quote  the  same  chapters  of  the 
Fathers  to  prove  infant  baptism.  Now  we  fully  admit, 
that  the  Fathers  speak  often  of  immersion  after  the 
third  century,  but  Mr.  Campbell  says  he  can  find  but 
tivo  references  to  immersion  till  after  "the  year  140,'' 
and  then  quotes  Justin,  as  we  have  above,  who  says 
nothing  of  immersion.  So  we  are  brought  down  to 
Tertullian,  200  years  after  Christ,  before  we  come  even 
to  trine  immersion,  milk  and  honey,  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  &:c.,  as  we  shall  show  in  due  time.  Then  all  the 
passages  cited  out  of  the  Fathei^  prove  too  much  for 
our  modern  immersionists,  for  they  prove  that  all  their 
immersions  were  performed  in  a  state  oi perfect  miditi/. 
The  zealous  and  celebrated  Mr.  Robinson,  the  Baptist 
Historian,  page  85,  says: — 

"The  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked.  Nothino^ 
is  easier,  than  to  prove  this  by  quotations  from  the  au- 
thentic writings  of  the  men  who  administered  baptism, 
and  who>  certainly  knew  in  what  way  they  perforn^ed 
it.  There  is  no  ancient  historical  ikct  better  authen- 
ticated than  this.  The  evidence  does  not  go  on  the 
single  word  naked- — for  then  the  reader  might  suspect 
allegory — but  on  facts    reported,   and  many   reasons- 

10 


146 

assigned  for  the  practice."  He  then  cites  several  ex- 
amples. 

Dr.  Wall,  Part  2,  chapter  15,  fully  settles  this  point. 

'^The  ancient  Christians,  when  they  were  baptized 
by  immersion,  were  all  baptized  naked,  whether  men, 
women,  or  children.  The  proofs  of  this  I  shall  omit, 
because  it  is  a  clear  case.  They  thought  it  better  rep- 
resented the  putting  off  the  old  man,  and  also  the 
nakedness  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  Moreover,  as  bap- 
tism is  a  washing,  they  judged  it  should  be  the  washing 
of  the  hody^  not  of  the  clothes.'''' 

Another  thing  that  the  ancient  instances  of  immer- 
sion prove,  which  is  too  much  for  modern  ones,  is,  that 
it  was  repeated  three  times,  or  trine  immersions,  as 
Chrysostom  says: — 'Our  Lord  delivered  to  us  one  bap- 
tism, by  three  immersions.'  Or  as  TertuUian  says: — 
'^We  are  three  times  plunged  into  the  water,  and  when 
we  arc  taken  up,  we  taste  a  mixture  of  milk  and  hon- 
ey, &c. ;  when  we  go  to  meat — when  we  lie  down,  or 
sit  down — and  whatever  business  we  have,  we  make 
on  our  foreheads  the  sign  of  the  cross.  If  you  search 
in  the  Scriptures  for  any  command  for  these,  and  such 
like  usages,  you  shall  find  none.  Tradition  will  be 
urged  upon  you  as  the  ground  of  them — custom,  as 
the  confirmer  of  them — and  our  rehgion  teaches  us  to 
observe  them." — Chapter  1 — 3,  C.  M. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  origin  and  source  of  immer- 
sion, from  the  famous  TertuUian.     It  is  tradition  I  !  ! 

This  will  be  more  fully  shown  in  Letter  24 — the  liis- 
tory  of  Immersion.  Those  who  contend  now  for  single 
immersion,  with  the  clothes  on,  without  giving  milk  and 
honey,  making  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  exorcism,  and 


147 

putting  on  white  for  so  many  days,  find  no  examples  of 
their  mode  in  antiquity.  The  Eunomians,  who  im- 
mersed but  one  time^  and  that  naked  and  head  foremost 
in  a  font,  are  the  people  condemned  for  single  immer- 
sion by  the  council  of  Constantinople.  They  were 
thought,  in  those  days,  to  be  a  strange  people  who  im- 
mersed but  once. 


LETTER  XX. 

THE  DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN    THE    IMMERSION  OF    THE  FA- 
THERS AND  THAT  OF  THE  PRESENT  AGE  SHOWN. 

As  we  cited  from  Tertiillian,  in  our  last  Letter,  that 
IMMERSION  was  foundcd  upon  tradition,  and  not  taugjbt 
in  the  Scriptures,  we  shall  attempt  to  make  that  point 
rlear.  I  wish  it  to  be  fully  and  distinctly  understood 
by  all,  that  we  admit  the  practice  of  immersion  to  have 
been  in  the  church  in  the  2d  and  3d  centuries,  and'  of- 
ten afterward,  and  that  it  is  often  mentioned  by  the 
Fathers.  But  note ;  not  one  of  them  ever  declare  that 
mode  to  be  essential  to  baptism,  ©r  teach  that  it  is 
taught  in  the  word  of  God;  but  they  refer  to  immer^ 
sion  as  founded  on  tradition,  like  all  the  other  appen- 
dages to  it,  as  eating  salt,  drinking^  mUk  and  honey, 
wearing  white,  and  renouncing  the  Devil^  &c.  &lc^ 
vSo  that  if  immersion  is  found  in  aH  the  Fathers,  it 
proves  nothing  for  our  opponents,  unless  they  will  take 
along  all  the  other  appendages  to  baptisna.  brought  in 
at  an  early  time  with  it,  as  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the 
trine  immersion  in  a  state  of  perfecl  nakedness,  the 
salt,  milk,  honey,  and  white  robes. 

Now,  as  a  specimen,  read  the  following  favorite  au- 
thor with  the  Baptists.     Tertullian  says : — 

"Let  us  try,  then,  whetlier  no  tradition  ought  to  be 
allowed,  which  is  not  written,  &c.  Now  to  begin  with 
BAPTIS3I.  When  we  come  to  the  water,  we  do  there,, 
(and  we  do  the  same  also  a  little  before  in  the  congre- 
gation,) under  the  hand  of  the  pastor,  make  a  profes- 
sion that  we  do  renounce  the  devil,  and  his  pomp  and 


149 

his  angels.  Then  we  are  three  times  plunged  into  the 
vrater;  and  we  answer  some  few  words  more  than  those 
which  our  Saviour  in  the  Gospel  has  enjoined.  When 
we  are  taken  out  of  the  water,  we  taste  a  mixture  of 
milk  and  honey.  And  from  that  day,  we  abstain  a 
whole  week  from  hathing  ourselves,  which  otherwise, 
we  use  every  day.  At  every  setting  out,  or  entry  on 
business;  whenever  we  come  in  or  go  out  from  any 
place;  when  we  dress  for  a  journey;  when  we  go  in  a 
bath;  when  we  go  to  meat;  when  the  candles  are 
brought  in;  when  we  lie  down  or  sit  down;  and  what- 
ever business  we  have,  we  make,  on  our  foreheads,  the 
sign  of  the  cross." 

Then  the  words  quoted  in  our  last  come  in  thus: — 
»'If  you  search  in  the  Scriptures  for  any  command  for 
these,  and  such  like  usages,  you  shall  find  none.  Tra- 
dition will  be  urged  upon  you  as  the  ground  of  them; 
custom,  as  the  confirmer  of  them;  and  our  religion 
teaches  us  to  observe  them."  Could  language  be  plain- 
er to  show  the  practice  was  founded  on  tradition,  con- 
firmed, and  kept  up  by  custom,  with  all  their  other 
appendages?  The  practice  of  immersion  came  into 
the  church  in  the  second  century,  when  the  Gnosti- 
cism of  the  east,  teaching  that  all  sin  was  in  matter 
or  in  the  body,  and  that  the  body  must  be  washed  or 
bathed  before  it  could  be  free  from  sin,  was  so  preva- 
lent. So  common  was  this  notion  in  that  day,  that  all 
or  nearly  all  these  Fathers  taught  that  baptism  or  batli- 
ing  the  body,  naked  in  the  water,  was  regeneration, 
as  any  may  see  by  a  reference  to  their  writings.  Hence 
we  read  in  St.  Hierome,  as  well  as  Tertulljan: — »^For 
many  other  things,  which  are  by  tradition  observed  in 


150 

the  church,  have  got  authority  as  if  they  were  written 
luws^  as  in  the  font  of  baptism  to  plunge  the  head  thrice 
under  water — Ter  caput  mergitare,^^ — Lib.  2. 

Tlie  same  says  Chrysostom,  Now  put  these  together; 

1.  All  the  ancient  iMMERsiaNs  were  performed  naked, 

2.  They  were  all  trine  immersions  ;  once  in  the  name 
of  each  person  of  the  trinity,  was  the  person  dipped. 

3.  This  practice  was  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  but 
by  TRADITION,  say  Tertullian,  Hierome  and  Chrysostonir 

4.  They  were  all  accompanied  by  various  other  rites, 
not  now  known.  Do  our  modern  immersionists  practice 
these  things?  I  behevenone  of  them.  Then  of  course 
they  have  not  the  immersion  of  the  Fathers  of  the  sec- 
ond and  third  centuries,  and  I  hope  never  may  have. 
But  let  me  ask  my  Baptist  friends;  'Do  you  really  be- 
lieve the  Fathers  of  the  third  century  had  the  Apos- 
tolic mode  of  baptism,  when  they  immersed  three  times 
naked,  tasting  spittle,  salt,  milk  and  honey?'  If  you 
say  yes,  then  how  dare  you,  on  your  principles,  depart 
one  iota  from  their  mode?  It  will  not  do  to  say  you 
have  the  substance;  you  must  have  the  express  letter 
of  the  positive  institution.  One  thing  is  certain;  these 
Fathers  and  our  present  immersionists  did  not  practice 
alike — they  difler  most  widely  from  each  other.  Why 
then  do  the  present  advocates  for  immersion  refer  to 
the  Fathers  for  their  practice?  They  do  not  follow 
them.     See  the  parallel,  thus: 

The  feathers  immersed  naked  to  cleanse  the  body 
from  sin:  Immersionists  now  dip  with  the  clothes  on, 
often  four-fold.  The  former  dipped  the  head  three 
times:  The  latter  the  whole  body  but  once.  The  for- 
mer gave  spittle,  salt,  milk,  and  honey:  The  latter  give 


151 

nothing,  unless  it  be  a  little  spirits  to  prevent  cold. — 
The  Fathers  founded  their  immersion,  not  upon  Scrip- 
ture, but  upon  unwritten  tradition,  says  Tertuilian: 
The  present  immersionists  saj  they  found  theirs  not 
upon  tradition,  but  Scripture  alone.  The  Fathers  nev- 
er made  immersion  essential  to  baptism,  says  Cyprian 
to  Magnus,  and  Origen  of  Elijah:  But  our  present  im- 
mersionists declare  nothing  else  baptism,  but  immer- 
sion. Now,  when  they  differ  from  the  Fathers  in  these 
things  about  their  immersion,  can  they  with  a  good 
grace  cite  these  very  men  to  prove  their  practice  ?  They 
may  cite  them,  but  with  thinking,  intelKgent  people 
they  will  prove  too  much,  and  thus  really  prove  noth- 
ing. It  will  not  do  to  go  to  the  Fathers  for  immersion — 
we  want  a  Hhus  saith  the  Lord'  from  the  Bible.  If  it 
could  be  found  in  the  Bible  first,  and  then  in  the  Fa- 
thers, it  would  show  it  a  valid  mode  of  baptism;  but 
then  it  would  not  follow  of  course  that  it  vras  essen- 
tial to  baptism. 

One  thing  has  ever  been  most  manifest  in  every  pe- 
riod of  the  church,  that  is,  a  disposition  to  overdo  the 
thing — in  ceremonials  to  put  more  stress,  and  attach 
more  importance  to  outward  ordinances,  than  the  Bi- 
ble justifies.  This  has  been  true  from  the  day  that 
Peter  said,  *not  my  feet  only,  but  my  hands  and  my 
head,'  to  the  present  time.  The  languageof  Christ  to 
him  should  ever  restrain  from  running  into  superstition 
thus,  as  thousands  do. — '^He  that  is  washed  nccdeth 
not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit.' — 
That  is,  says  one — ^It  is  not  the  physical  ablution,  but 
the  symbolical  meaning,  to  which  I  wish  now  to  call 
your  attention.'     It  is  not  the  mode,  nor  quahty,  but 


152 

the  meaning  of  it.  We  see  this  superstition  daily  in 
the  Catholic  sacraments.  We  see  it  in  the  various  ad- 
ditions made  to  baptism  in  the  few  first  centuries  after 
Christ,  as  above  refered  to. 

Professor  Pond  says — "There  is  a  disposition  in  men 
to  OVERDO  in  the  externals  of  religion,  while  they  undo, 
and  perhaps  do  little  or  nothing,  in  things  more  essen- 
tial. The  Pharisees,  not  satisfied  with  the  ceremonial 
law,  must  add  to  it  'the  tradition  of  elders.'  Peter,  not 
satisfied  with  that  degree  of  washing  which  his  master 
judged  to  be  sufficient,  said,  not  my  feet  only,  but  my 
hands,  and  my  head.'  And  Christians,  in  some  past 
ages,  not  satisfied  to  be  baptized  by  pouring,  washing 
or  sprinkling,  which  is  as  much,  I  think,  as  the  Savior 
requires,  must  be  plunged  completely  under  water. — 
Indeed,  at  some  periods  they  have  not  been  satisfied 
even  with  this.  They  must  be  immersed  three  times. 
Then  they  must  be  immersed  naked.  Then  they  must 
have  water  applied  to  the  face,  and  be  marked  with  a 
cross,  and  anointed  with  oil  subsequent  to  immersion. 
They  must  be  robed  in  white  a  certain  number  of  days 
after  baptism,  in  token  of  their  purity.  I  mention  these 
facts  to  show  the  propensity  there  is  in  man  to  be  su- 
perstitious, and  to  attempt  more  than  is  needful  in  the 
externals  of  religion." — Treatise  on  Baptism,  p.  42. 

To  insist  upon  immersion  as  essential  to  Christian 
baptism  is  superstitious.  'It  is  generally  granted  by 
enlightened  Protestants,'  says  Dr.  Miller,  Ho  be  one  of 
the  mischievous  errors  of  Popery,  that  baptism,  and 
other  appointed  rites  of  our  religion,  when  adminis- 
tered by  authorized  hands,  have  an  inherent  efficacy — 
a  sort  of  self-operating  power  on  those  to  whom  they 


are  administered.     This  we  consider  as  a  saperstitious 
and  dangerous  error.' 

This  is  the  tendency  of  things  at  the  present  time  in 
this  country.  One  set  of  immersionists  invert  the  or- 
der of  the  gospel,  and  put  ceremonies  first,  and  heart- 
work  and  principles  second,  and  thus  effectually  destroy 
religion.  Another  set  convert  the  mode  and  quantity 
of  water  in  baptism  into  the  essential  thing,  and  though 
a  man  have  every  other  requisite  in  baptism,  if  it  lack 
a  certain  mode  or  quantity  he  is  not  baptized,  and  is 
declared  out  of  the  church,  and  unfit  for  the  kingdom 
ef  heaven.     Is  this  not  really  superstition? 


LETTER  XXI. 

IMMERSION  IIA.S    INVERTED,    AND    FULLY    DESTROYED  THE 

GOSPEL  IN  PAST  AGES,  AND  THE  TENDENCY  NOW  IS 

TO  THE  SA3IE  SUPERSTITIOUS  REGARD  FOR  IT. 

We  hope  in  this  numher  to  illustrate  more  fully  two 
points  mentioned  in  our  last  Letter. 

1.  That  immersion  came  in  with  the  other  appen- 
dages to  baptism,  after  the  Gnosticism  of  the  East  be- 
came prevalent  in  the  church,  in  the  second  century. 

2,  That  it  was  superstitiously  magnihed  into  a 
sine  qua  non  to  salvation.  'Ancient  Christianity,'  a 
masterly  work  by  Isaac  Taylor  in  answer  to  the  'Ox- 
ford Tracts,'  would  do  our  modern  immersionists,  who 
make  the  mode  essential  to  baptism,  great  good,  and 
throw  much  light  on  the  above  two  points,  and  we 
take  pleasure  in  refering  them  to  it.  We  hope  they 
will  ALL  read  it,  and  doubt  not  but  the  thinking,  in- 
telligent ones  who  may  read  it  will  renounce  their  er- 
ror. That  Gnosticism  did  mislead,  or  leaven  the  teach- 
ing of  all  the  Fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries 
after  Christ,  none  can  deny;  and  that  the  celibacy  of 
the  clergy,  and  other  kindred  notions,  never  taught  in 
the  word  of  God,  did  at  that  early  time  greatly  per- 
vert the  theological  principles,  the  moral  sentiments, 
and  introduce  superstitious  usages  and  ceremonies  into 
the  church,  is  most  evident  from  the  best  authors  of 
those  times,  as  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  Chrysostom,  «&€► 

No  one  pretends  to  affirm  that  these  Fathers  speak 
of  baptism  in  any  such  language  as  Peter,  and  Paul, 
and  John,  or  Christ  did.     The  difference  is  as  great  as 


155 

that  between  day  and  night.  But  what  caused  the  dir- 
ference?  Their  notions  of  sin  being  in  matter  or  in 
the  BODY,  and  that  purity  was  obtained  by  the  sacra- 
ments alone.  But  we  never  hear  any  thing  from 
Christ,  Peter  or  Paul,  of  all  this.  The  religion  of 
Christ  was  a  religion  of  principles,  and  ceremonies 
were  but  secondary  matters  that  followed  of  course,^ 
but  did  not  go  before.  The  religion  of  the  FxIthers, 
even  in  the  second  century,  became  'a  religion  of  sa- 
craments' or  ceremonies,  as  the  Catholic  church  now 
is.  The  first  symptom  of  decay  in  religion  at  that  time 
was,  as  it  ever  has  been,  a  revival  of  the  ritual  or  cer- 
emonial part,  and  the  putting  the  rites  first  or  foremost 
thus  inverting  the  order  of  the  gospel.  Principles  and 
sacraments  in  religion  never  can  be  kept  abreast,  the 
one  of  the  other — they  will  not  remain  in  a  state  of 
equipoise — the  spiritual  part  will  be  thrown  back,  and 
retire,  and  the  merest  form.alities  and  grossest  supersti- 
tions will  follow.  Whenever  spiritual  principles  are 
put  hindmost  or  secondary,  and  sacrments  foremost,  we 
see  religion  effectually  destroyed.  This  was  the  case 
with  the  Jews.  When  Christ  came,  he  inverted  the 
order  back,  and  placed  spiritual  principles  first,  and 
heart-work  as  the  greater  matter,  while  he  threw  rites 
and  ceremonies  into  the  back  ground,  and  made  them 
but  secondary.  But  no  sooner  had  he  died,  yea,  even 
before  his  immediate  disciples  died,  this  same  leaven  of 
Judaism  and  Gnosticism  began  to  work  itself  back 
again,  and  did  leaven  the  whole  lump,  and  continued 
down  to  the  Reformation.  And  what  was  the  Refor- 
mation but  a  giant  effort  to  bring  back  the  church  from 
the  inverted  order  of  religion,  and  put  ceremonies  back 


15t5 

as  secondary,  and  bring  up  principles  and  spiritualities 
as  the  greater  matters?  What  is  the  tendency  of  things 
in  these  days,  but  to  the  same  inverted  order  of  cere- 
mony first,  and  heart-work  second?  It  is  to  magnify  a 
mode  into  the  substance;  it  is  to  fall  into  the  grossest 
superstition,  of  depending  upon  rituals. 

Here  permit  an  extract  from  'Ancient  Christianity' 
p.  340,  in  answer  to  the  question,  why  may  we  not 
keep  the  spiritual  and  sacramental  part  in  religion  a- 
breast,  one  of  the  other.     The  author  says: — 

"1.  The  original  constitution  of  the  human  mind  for- 
bids the  attempt  to  hold  elements  in  equipoise,  the  very 
tenure  of  which  is  not  to  occupy  one  and  the  same  level. 

"2.  The  actual  condition  of  human  nature,  as  per- 
versely disposed  always  to  substitute  the  ritual  for  the 
spiritual  in  religion,  renders  such  an  attempt  to  place 
the  tv^'o  evenly  before  the  mind,  or  otherwise  than  as 
the  Scriptures  place  them,  in  the  last  degree  unwise, 
nay  mischievous. 

"3.  God  forbids  this  endeavor,  bringing  as  it  does 
his  truth  upon  the  very  stage  which  all  false  religions 
have  occupied.  In  attestation  of  these  three  answers, 
the  whole  course  of  history  comes  to  our  aid  in  one 
crowded  mass." 

For  a  specimen  of  this  tendency  among  the  Fathers 
take  the  following  from  the  very  greatest  of  them, 
Chrysostom,  Tom.  1,  269. — "Although  a  man  should 
be  foul  with  every  vice,  the  blackest  that  can  be 
named,  yet  should  he  fall  into  the  baptismal  pool,  he 
ascends  from  the  divine  waters  purer  than  the  beams 
of  noon — he  is  made  just  in  a  moment.*'  Again;  "They 
who  approach  the  baptismal  font,  although  fornicators, 


157 

&c.,  are  not  only  made  clean,  but  holy  also,  and  just.'^ 
Once  more;  "As  a  spark  thrown  into  the  ocean  is  in- 
stantly extinguished,  so  is  sin  (be  it  what  it  may,)  ex- 
tinguished, when  the  man  is  thrown  into  the  laver  of 
regeneration."  Perhaps  it  was  from  this  that  Mr. 
Campbell  took  the  following  sentiment,  [Debate  with 
M'Calla,  p.  137,] — "Thus  coming  up  out  of  the  waters, 
born  again,  they  would  enter  the  world  a  second  time 
as  innocent,  as  clean,  and  as  unspotted  as  an  angel." — 
Or  in  the  Christian  Baptist,  vol.  5,  p..  160 — "In  an.d 
by  the  act  of  immersion,  as  soon  as  our  bodies  are  put 
under  the  water,  at  that  very  instant,  our  former  sins 
arc  washed  away." 

What  is  the  tendency  of  such  language,  but  to  make 
the  person  think  more  of  the  mode,  the  rite  of  baptism, 
the  pool  of  regeneration,  here  made  the  turning  point 
of  salvation,  than  of  Christ,  or  the  spirit,  and  thus  invert 
the  order  of  religion?  And  what  difference  is  there 
between  such  language,  and  the  preaching  of  those 
who  are  always  harping  upon  the  mode  of  baptism, 
and  declaring  no  one  baptized  unless  after  their  pecul- 
iar mode?  Who  does  not  know  that  one  point,  or  a 
mere  mode,  may  be  made  to  fill  up  the  mind  so  com- 
pletely as  to  obscure  and  make  the  man  lose  sight  of 
every  thing  else?  'Agitate  the  soul  in  any  way;  excite 
its  fears,  hopes,  or  any  of  its  passions,  and  then  instant- 
ly,, and  just  in  proportion  to  the  excitement,  will  the 
mind"  lose  its  consciousness  of  all  but  the  single  exciting: 
object.  Show  a  man  the  muzzle  of  a  loaded  cannon 
peeping  from  a  thicket  in  the  distance,  and  where  he 
may  every  moment  expect  death;  show  him,  on  the 
broad  bosom  of  a  tumbling  sea,  an  open  boat  in  which 


158 

his  wife  and  children  are  tossing  between  hope  and 
despair,  and  what  else  will  he  see?' 

Now,  apply  this  to  the  case  in  hand.  You  may 
tell  the  sinner  of  every  thing  else;  you  may  set  forth 
all  the  truth:  what  of  it?  on  what  point  is  his  eye  fixed? 
The  mode  of  baptism,  by  immersion !  What  else  can 
he  see?  Christ  is  nothing,  the  spirit  is  nothing,  the  sup- 
per is  nothing,  without  this  mode  of  baptism  first! — 
Who  does  not  see  the  tendency  to  superstition,  and 
thus  wholly  to  invert  and  destroy  religion,  by  making 
a  mere  shell,  a  mere  mode,  fill  the  whole  horizon  of  the 
mind's  eye?  And  who  does  not  know  that  this  is  the 
tendency  of  human  nature?  But  did  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  say  that  Hhe  kingdom  of  God  was  meat  and 
drink,  or  righteousness,  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost?'  Did  they  like  the  Fathers  and  modern  immer- 
sionists  make  any  one  ceremony  so  prominent  as  to 
throw  all  the  rest  into  the  shade  ?  "Was  it  intended 
that  Christians  were  to  shift  their  position  as  soon  as 
tlie  Apostles  died,  and  betake  themselves  to  a  point  of 
view,  whence  every  thing,  spiritual,  moral,  ritual  and 
ecclesiastical,  would  appear  under  a  totally  dilFerent 
aspect,  and  present  to  the  eye  a  side  that  had  never 
been  seen  before;  and  that  these  objects,  severally, 
should  subtend,  on  the  field  of  vision,  exchanged  in 
magnitudes,  the  great  seeming  small  and  the  small, 
great?"  Is  this  to  be  believed?  But  until  this  can  be 
shown  to  be  true,  the  various  additions  made  to  the  or  - 
dinance  of  baptism  by  the  Fathers,  and  the  importance 
attached  to  immersion  by  many  in  this  day,  can  never 
be  sustained  by  an  appeal  to  the  Bibie,  where  Christ 
and  his  disciples  taught  the  nature  of  baptism  so  sim- 


159 

ply,  and  as  a  matter  to  be  attended  to  only  as  an  out- 
ward ceremony. 

8uch  is  the  tendency  of  perverted  human  nature  to 
what  is  visible,  formal,  and  outward  in  religion,  that, 
like  multitudes  of  all  ages,  men  now  fix  their  minds 
upon  the  mere  materials  or  instruments  of  the  sacra- 
ments, as  the  Catholic  upon  the  wafer,  and  thousands 
of  others  ''upon  the  glassy  surface  of  the  Baptismal 
pool  as  yet  unruffled,  and  reflecting  the  marbled  mag- 
nificence of  the  church,  seeming  the  very  mirror  of 
eternity,  and  as  if  while  intently  gazing  upon  it  the 
glories  of  heaven  might  be  dimly  discerned  beneath.*' 
It  was  from  this  very  inverting  the  order  of  religion 
and  making  the  mode  of  baptism  so  important,  that  the 
practice  of  defering  baptism  till  just  before  death  took 
its  rise.  "The  regenerating  waters"  would  cover  all 
defects,  and  give  a  certain  passport  to  heaven.  So  that 
this  one  remedy  was  all  powerful — it  took  the  place  of 
all  other  things.  Men  lived  as  they  chose,  and  the 
Fathers  of  the  Nicene  age  spent  their  powerful  elo- 
quence against  such  a  practice  in  vain — it  went  on  from 
age  to  age. 

But  we  find  no  such  idea  in  the  Bible.  I  hope  in- 
telligent Protestants  will  no  longer  attempt  to  sustain 
a  practice  founded  on  tradition,  and  brought  into  the 
church  by  men  infected  with  the  absurd  notions  of 
Gnosticism,  but  will  return  to  the  simple  ordinance  a? 
taught  by  Christ  in  the  New  Testament.  On  these 
points  we  might  fill  pages  with  quotations  from  the 
Fathers,  but  'a  hint  to  the  wise  is  sufticient.'  We  hope 
in  our  next  to  come  nearer  our  own  time  in  the  histo 
rical  argument,  or  to  the  Reformation. 


LETTER   XXII.. 

FAPTIS3I  IN  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY,  AND  PROM 
THE  TI3IE  OF  HENRY  VIII  TO  ELIZABETH. 

It  has  been  often  asserted,  that  Infant  Baptism  an^i 
sprinkling  were  legalized  and  brought  into  the  church 
by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  when  they  formed  our 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory  for  public  worship. 
This  misrepresentation  so  often  repeated,  and  so  con- 
clusively refuted,  almost  for  the  tliousandth  time,  is  still 
repeated  by  every  ranter  against  sprinkling.  In  this 
county  it  has  been  repeated  no  less  than  four  times 
within  the  last  year,  by  four  different  men.  One  of 
them  said  'sprinkling  would  never  have  been  heard  of 
among  us,  if  it  had  not  been  for  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who 
gave  the  casting  vote  in  favor  of  it  when  the  West- 
minster Divines  were  divided,  24  in  favor  of  immersion, 
and  24  for  sprinkling.  This  is  the  common  version  of 
the  story,  but  every  intelligent  reader  of  the  history  of 
that  Assembly  knows  it  is  wholly  untrue.  Robin- 
son, in  his  history  of  baptism,  first  repeated  this  slan- 
der in  this  country^  and  from  him  all  con  it  over.  But 
is  there  one  authentic  history  of  the  times,  or  a  stan- 
dard work,  that  states  it?  Robinson  is  no  authority. 
His  evidence  is  ex  park.  NeaPs  History  of  the  Puri- 
tans, Volume  2,  page  275,  declares  the  assertion  to  be 
wholly  untrue,  saying: — ^^The  directory  passed  the  A.'*- 
sembly  with  great  unanimity.'  I.ightfoot's  Works, 
volume  1,  page  4,  gives  the  whole  history  of  the  ease,, 
and  also  declares  it  untrue. 

Read  the  works  above  named,  and  Dr.  Miller,  pag*:^ 


161 

121,  on  baptismy  and  you  will  find  the  following  to  be 
the  truth  of  the  case,  and  I  hope  jou  will  read  and 
memorize  it,  so  as  never  again  to  misrepresent  it. — 
"There  was  a  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  direc- 
tory for  the  worship  of  God.  Their  report  on  the 
mode  of  baptism  read  thus: — 'It  is  lawful  and  sufficient 
to  sprinkle  the  child.'  To  the  word  'lawful'  Dr.  Light- 
foot  objected,  'because  it  was  improper  to  call  sprink- 
ling lawful  only,  when  no  body  doubted  its  being  law- 
ful, but  all  believed  it.'  The  Doctor  went  on  to  say, 
'that  to  say  pouring  or  sprinkling  was  lawful  would  be 
all  one,  as  that  it  was  lawful  to  use  bread  and  wine  in 
the  Lord's  supper.'  When  the  clause,  as  above  repor- 
ted, (but  not  whether  sprinkling  or  immersio^n  was  t"he 
true  mode  of  bap tism-^-that  was  not  the  question  at  all,) 
came  to  vote,  on  the  word  'lawful'  there  were  24  votes 
in  favor  of  it,  and  24  against  it — on  which  side  was 
Dr.  Lightfoot?" 

After  this  tied  vote,  a  motion  was  made  and  carried 
to  re-commit  the  whole  matter.  The  next  day,  when 
the  committee  reported.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  after  the  re- 
marks as  above  stated,  moved  that  the  clause  in  the 
directory  be  thus  expressed — "Then  the  minister  is  to 
demand  the  nan>e  of  the  child,  which  being  told  he  is 
to  say,  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  he  pronounceth  these 
words,  he  is  to  baptize  the  child  with  water,  which 
for  the  manner  of  doing  it  is  not  only  lawful  but  suffi- 
cient to  be  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  the  water  on  the 
face  of  the  child,  without  adding  any  other  ceremo- 
ny."    This  is  the  way  the  directory  reads,  in  Appen^ 

dix  No,  2,  Neal's  History.    And  this,  says  Neal,  'passed 
11 


U2 

with  great  unanimity,'^  This  history  of  the  whole  trans- 
action is  also  given  by  Strjpe,  in  his  life  of  Lightfoot, 
page  4.  Now,  where  is  the  foundation  for  such  a  re- 
port? Is  it  not  astonishing  that  men  of  sense,  and  ve- 
racity in  other  matters,  should  invert,  misstate,  and  re- 
capitulate this  slander — men,  too,  that  should,  if  they 
do  not,  know  better?  If  any  man  can  disprove  the 
truth  of  the  above,  we  should  be  glad  to  have  him  do 
it,  from  standard  authors,  however. 

I  shall  now  attempt  to  show,  that  so  far  from  the 
Westminster  Divines  'bringing  infant  sprinkling'  into 
notice,  it  had  been  the  practice  in  England  since  the 
Reformation,  and  all  know  that  it  was  the  custom  of 
the  Catholic  Church  before  that  time.  The  fact  is, 
Anabaptism  arose  out  of  opposition  to  the  Catholic 
Church.  After  Luther  commenced  reforming,  Mun- 
zer,Storch  &l  Co.,  thought  he  did  not  go  far  enough,  and 
they  ran  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  opposing  almost  eve- 
ry thing  the  CathoUcs  did  and  taught;  'that  infant  bap- 
tism and  sprinkling,'  as  used  by  the  Catholics  from  time 
immemorial,  was  an  abuse  to  be  reformed.  This  is  its 
origin.  Now  if  we  show  infant  baptism,  in  our  mode,  to 
have  prevailed  from  the  days  of  Henry  VIII.  down  to 
1641,  the  time  of  the  Westminster  Divines,  the  histor- 
ical argument  is  settled.  Neal's  History,  p.  26,  vol.  1, 
says: — 'But  notwithstanding  the  reformation  of  doc- 
trine, the  old  Popish  forms  of  worship  were  continued 
till  this  year,'  (1544)  two  years  before  Henry  VIII  died. 
So  that  no  change  took  place  while  he  lived,  for  he 
died  January  28,  1547.  But  when  his  son,  Edward 
VI,  reformed  the  church  in  his  reign,  Neal  says: — ^''^n 
the  administration  of  baptism,  a  cross  was  made — with 


163 

water — on  the  child's  forehead  and  breast,  and  the  devil 
exorcised  to  go  out  and  enter  no  more  into  him.  The 
child  was  to  be  dipped  three  times  in  the  font  (a  kind 
of  basin)  on  the  right  and  left  side,  and  on  the  breast, 
if  not  weak.  A  white  vestment  was  to  be  put  upon  it 
in  token  of  innocence;  and  it  was  to  be  annointed  on 
the  head,  with  a  short  prayer  for  the  unction  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."— Volume  1,  page  36.  And  the  28th  ar- 
ticle of  the  church  said — "The  custom  of  the  church 
for  baptizing  young  children,  is  both  to  be  commended 
and  by  all  means  to  be  retained  in  the  church."  This 
was  left  out  of  Elizabeth's  articles  afterwards.  The 
bloody  Mary  succeeded  Edward,  with  all  her  Catholic 
zeal  and  bigotry.  So  you  may  know  what  was  her 
custom.  "But  the  form  of  baptism,  among  the  English 
Exiles  and  best  Christians  in  the  days  of  Mary,  was  for 
the  minister  to  take  water  in  his  hand  and  lay  it  on 
the  child's  forehead,  and  say,  'I  baptize  thee,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,'  "  4&c. — See  Book  of  Forms.  So 
about  the  same  time,  A.  D.  1551,  Sebastian,  Arch- 
Bishop  of  Mentz,  directs — "That  the  Priest,  holding 
the  child  over  the  font  in  his  left  hand,  shall  take  wa- 
ter out  of  the  font  with  his  right  hand,  and  pour  it  upon 
the  head  of  the  child  three  times." 

Here,  then,  we  find  pouring  or  sprinkling  in  baptism, 
and  that  of  infants,  before  'John  Calvin'  could  have 
'invented  it,'  as  some  ignorantly  have  it.  And  in  the 
days  of  Elizabeth,  when  the  Puritans  complained  of  the 
abuses  in  the  church,  to  which  did  they  expressly  state 
their  objection,  but  to  the  superstitious  mode  of  baptiz-' 
ing children? — See  Neal,  vol.  l,p.  157.  They  obje/:ted: ' 

"1.  To  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism,  which  is  no 


mi 

part  of  the  institution,  as  recorded'in  Scripture.  They, , 
also,  disallowed  of  baptism  by  midwives,  or  other  wo- 
men,  in  cases  of  sickness,"  &c. 

'*2.  They  excepted  to  Godfathers  and  Godmothers,. 
to  the  exclusion  of  parents,  from  being  sureties  for  the 
education  of  their  own  children." 

But  they  did  not  object  to  the  mode  of  sprinkling,, 
nor  to  baptizing  children^  for  they  practiced  both.  In 
this  reign,  the  Puritans  often  consulted  Calvin,  Beza, 
and  other  foreign  divines;  and  after  this,  all  will  admit 
that  sprinkUng  spread  with  the  Reformation  into  Scot- 
land, England,  and  all  the  countries  into  which  it 
reached.  That  all  the  Reformers  practiced  it  will  not 
be  questioned,  and  that  the  Catholic  church  did  liloi- 
wise,  is  equally  true. 

Then  we  are  thrown  back  upon  the  history  of  the 
people  called  Waldenses,  as  the  only  hope  to  disprove 
infant  sprinkling,  or  pouring;  or  to  sustain  the  claim,of 
the  Anabaptists. 

In  the  Waldensian  Catechism,  written  in  1 100,  we 
read  thus: 

'^There  are  two  sacraments,  one  of  water,  and  the 
other  of  aliment,  that  is,  of  bread  and  wine.  The  fir^t 
is  called  baptism,  or,  in  our  language,  a  wasliing  witli 
water,  whether  of  a  river,  or  from  a  fountaifl.  And  it 
must  be  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  o£  the  Holy  Ghost.  Children  are  to  be  presented 
for  baptism;  and  this  shall  be  done  by  those  to  whom 
they  are  most  nearly  related,,  such  as  parents,  or  those 
to  whom  God  has  given  this  office  of  love."  Is  this 
Anabaptism? 

Dr.  Murdock  says,  in  notes  ta  Mosheim — "It  is  very 


465 

tfar  from  being  true,  that  the  Mentiomtes,  or  continen- 
tal Anabaptists,  bore  a  nearer  resemblance  to  the  pro- 
per Waldenses — the  Wicklifiites,  and  the  Hussites — • 
than  the  other  Protestants,  or  the  Liithei'atis  and  Re- 
formed, or  Calvinists.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  well 
kriown  historicalfact,  that,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
the  genuine  descendants  of  the  Waldensians,  Wicklifi- 
ites, and  Hussites,  who  were  numerous  in  France^  Eng- 
land, Bohemia,  Moravia,  &c.,  readily  united  with  the 
]  iUtherans  and  Reformed,  or  Calvinistic  churches,  and 
at  length  became  absorbed  in  them:  and  that  very  few, 
if  any  of  them,  ever  ^manifested  a  preference  for  the 
Mennonites,  or  Anabaptists  of  that  age.  These  Walden- 
sian  Paedobaptists,  moreover,  declared  that  they  held 
the  same  belief  which  their  fathers  maintained  for 
several  centuries,  and  appeal  to  their  own  old  books  to 
make  good  their  assertions.  No  Ecclesiastical  history 
disproves  the  truth  of  their  assertions."  Those  v>  ho 
live  now  in  the  same  parts  of  the  world,  as  we  showed 
from  Mr.  Dwight's  letter,  and  claim  to  be  true  descen- 
dants of  the  old  Waldenses,  ^baptize  their  children  by 
sprinkling.'  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  also,  that  the 
above  old  Cathechism  gives,  expressly,  our  definition  of 
baptism,  viz: — 'a  w^ashing  with  water.'  I  hope  those 
who  oppose  infant  baptism  and  sprinkling,  will  not 
lay  claim  again  to  the  Waldenses,  who  were  rigid  Pa:- 
dobaptists.  So  we  conclude,  that  as  infant  baptism,  and 
that  by  sprinkling  too,  was  in  the  Catholic  church  be- 
fore the  Reformation  spread  over  the  world  with  it,  antl 
was  practiced  by  the  good  old  witnesses,  the  Walden- 
ses, that  neither  the  Divines  at  Westminster,  nor  Jo!in 
Calvin  either,  invented  it.'' 


LETTER  XXin. 

THE  QUESTION  FULLY    YIELDED  TO  US,  BY  IMMERSIONIST» 
GIVING  UP  THE  ENGLISH    BIBLE  FOR  NEW    VERSIONS* 

The  Immersionists  of  this  country  are  becoming  very 
tired  of  the  controversy  on  the  mode  of  baptism.  They 
seem  to  despair  of  success  in  fair  discussion,  and  quite 
disposed  to  take  the  short  method  of  gaining  their  points 
Utterly  faiUng  to  prove  that  immersion  is  essential  to 
baptism,  they  have  assumed  it  and  resorted  to  new  ver- 
sions of  their  own  fabrication,  rendering  baptizo  by  the 
term  immerse,  in  every  instance  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  the  last  hope  of  their  success.  They  seem  to  have 
a  mortal  hatred  to  our  word  baptize,  and  no  hope  of 
success  while  it  remains  in  use,  hence  their  mania  for 
new  Bibles  with  immersion  substituted  in  its  stead.  Is 
not  this  really  cutting  the  knot  they  have  failed  to  un- 
tie? Is  it  not  jumping  to  a  conclusion,  neither  proven 
nor  granted,  the  very  opposite  of  which  has  been  abun- 
dantly sustained  by  the  great  mass  of  the  Christian 
world?  Is  it  not  really  yielding  the  whole  point  to 
the  Pffidobaptist?  The  whole  argument  of  the  advo- 
cates for  new  versions  goes  upon  the  supposition  that 
our  English  Bible  is  fully  and  decidedly  in  favor  of 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  against  immersion;  and, 
while  this  continues  in  use,  immersion  never  can  pre- 
vail, nor  intelligent  Christians  generally  believe  it  es- 
sential to  baptism.  Take  the  following  sentence  from 
the  new  Baptist  Bible  Society's  report,  page  33,  as  a 
specimen  of  what  has  occurred  under  the  good  old  En- 
glish version: — 


167 

*'The  Paedobaptist  error  of  sprinkling  has  obtained 
the  blind  and  almost  universal  suffrage  of  what  is^^call- 
cd  the  Christian  world." 

This  is  conceding  to  us  the  whole  English  Bible,  and 
with  it  the  very  point  in  debate.     It  is  all  we  want, 

I  shall  attempt,  in  this  Letter,  to  show  that  both  the 
Baptists  and  Reformers  have  taken  this  short  method 
of  substituting  immersion  for  baptize,  or  baptism,  as  the 
onlj  grounds  of  hope  left  them  for  success  in  this  con- 
troversy. Thus  they  beg  the  question  they  have  ut- 
terly failed  to  prove — they  assume  as  true  what  has  been 
triumphantly  refuted  and  disproved,  over  and  again.  It 
is  entirely  too  late  for  Christians  to  be  thus  gulled  and 
imposed  upon  by  every  man  or  set  of  men  who  may 
have  the  temerity  and  presumption  to  think  they  can 
improve  the  Word  of  God,  and  neutralize  the  Bible 
and  language  that  time  and  use  have  rendered  sacred 
and  familiar  to  all  classes  throughout  Christendom. — 
Men  have  too  much  infonnation  and  judgment  to  give 
up  our  most  appropriate  word,  baptize,  or  have  it  sup- 
planted by  the  Popish  Latin  word,  immersion,  which 
has  no  place  in  the  Word  of  God.  We  say  the  old 
word  is  better.  Whenever  men  begin  to  coin  new 
WORDS  and  phrases,  they  are  very  apt  to  bring  with 
them  some  new  doctrine,  and  if  we  let  new  words 
creep  into  the  Bible,  we  shall  soon  have  another  Gos- 
pel, as  some  are  even  now  preaching. 

That  Mr.  Campbell  has  substituted  the  word  im- 
merse for  baptize,  in  every  instance,  is  well  known, 
and  now  too  notorious  to  all  this  community,  from  his 
six  editions  of  'Living  Oracles' — as  he  terms  his  new 
fangled  Testament — for  us  to  stop  here  to  prove.  This 


fact  we  take  for  granted.  To  this  version  of  the  Tes- 
tament our  old  Baptist  brethren  all  demur,  and  some 
have  gone  so  far  as  publicly  to  burn  it,  calling  it  an- 
other Gospel — a  corrupted,  unfaithful  thing.  But  nov/ 
behold,  a  new  'Baptist  Bible,  for  all  the  world,'  comes 
out  under  the  auspices  of  the  'American  Foreign  Bi- 
ble Society,'  rendering  every  word,  in  this  particular^ 
precisely  as  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  has  done. 

Permit  me  here  to  give  a  little  in  detail  the  history 
of  this  matter,  from  the  Baptist  reports  as  now  printed. 
And  I  hope  all  will  read  the  reports  to  which  I  refer, 
and  see  for  themselves  this  astounding  transaction. 

In  1835,  a  Baptist  INIissionary,  from  Calcutta,  wrote 
to  know  if  they  could  obtain  money  to  print  and  circu- 
late a  Bible — the  Bengalee — translated  on  Baptist 
principles.  When  the  Board  of  the  American  Bible 
Society  met,  in  February  1836,  they  Resolved — 

''1.  That,  by  the  constitution  of  the  A.  B.  Society, 
it^  managers  are,  in  circulating  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
restricted  to  such  copies  as  are  without  note  or  com- 
ment, and  in  the  English  language  to  the  version  in 
common  use,  and  therefore, 

2.  That,  in  appropnating  money  for  the  translating, 
piinting,  or  distributing  the  Scriptures  in  foreign  lan- 
guages, the  managers  feel  at  liberty  to  encourage  only 
such  versions  as  conform,  in  the  principles  of  their  trans- 
lation, to  the  common  English  version,  at  least  so  far, 
as  that  all  religious  denominations,  represented  in  tliis 
{Society,  can  consistently  use  and  circulate  said  version 
in  their  several  schools  and  communities." 

The  American  Bible  Society  then  appropriated 
.$5,000  to  the  Baptist  Missionary  Society,  for  distribu- 


169 

ting  Bibles  of  the  genuine  kind,  as  they  had  ever  done. 
The  Baptists,  in  April  1836,  refused  to  receive  the  mo- 
ney, unless  it  could  be  appropriated  tq  distribute  their 
IMMERSION  Bibles.  See  report  of  Baptist  Board,  p.  '24, 
1836.  The  Baptists  immediately  called  a  general  con- 
vention of  their  whole  denomination,  to  meet  in  New 
York,  on  the  ISth  of  May,  1836,  when  it  was  Resolved, 

''That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  in 
the  United  States,  to  form  a  distinct  organization,  for 
Bible  translation  and  distribution." 

They  appointed  a  committee  to  bring  in  a  constitu- 
tution  and  nominate  officers,  and  on  the  next  day  was 
founded  "The  American  and  Foreign  (Baptist)  Bible 
Society." 

The  second  article  in  the  constitution  of  the  '-Bible 
Translation  Society"  reads  thus: — 

"It  shall  be  the  object  of  this  Society  to  encourage 
the  production  and  circulation  of  complete  translations 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  competently  authenticated  for 
ildelity,  it  being  always  understood,  that  the  words 
relating  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  shall  be  translated 
by  terms  signifying  immersion." 

This  is  as  plain  as  language  could  make  it,  that  they 
are  determined  to  have  no  other  Bibles  but  Baptist 
versions.  The  Society  has  been  in  operation  ever  since, 
and  its  Agents,  going  all  through  the  land,  raising  mo- 
ney to  circulate  this  sectarian  Bible,  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  in  our  own  as  well  as  other  languages. 

But  what  is  worse,  these  very  people  are  denouncing 
all  other  denominations,  and  slandering  the  American 
&  British  Bible  Societies  in  the  most  unmeasured  terms. 
Read  the  following  specimens  of  their  language:— 


170 

"Our  brethren  consider  the  course  adopted  by  Bible 
Societies,  in  three  quarters  of  the  Globe,  as  an  unholy 
league  to  suppress  the  eternal  truth  of  God.*' — Appen- 
dix and  Constitution,  page  73. 

"To  cast  a  veil  of  obscurity  over  any  part  of  the 
Word  of  God  must  be  a  sin.  It  is  known  that  the  Brit- 
ish and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  the  American  Bible 
Society,  have  virtually  combined  to  obscure  at  least  a 
part  of  the  Word  of  God."— Third  Report,  page  44. 

This  charge  is  repeated,  reiterated,  and  variously 
made,  in  all  their  reports,  speeches  and  documents, 
simply  because  two  noble  institutions  would  not  give 
money  to  circulate  an  inwiersion,  sectarian  Bible;  but 
prefered  sending  the  true  Bible,  without  note  or  com- 
ment. 

Again;  page  18 — "They  told  them,  that  hapiizo  sig- 
nifies to  sprinkle,  or  pour,  or  christen.  And  so  unhap- 
pily one  of  the  important  ordinances  of  the  Gospel,  de- 
scribed by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  with  a  sun-beam,  has 
been  covered  up  and  hid  from  the  great  mass  of  the 
people,  by  the  Popish  artifice  of  transfer."  See  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Convention. 

It  is  truly  very  unfortunate  for  these  people,  that  the 
Pope  speaks  Latin,  and  Paul  and  Christ  used  Greek: 
if  they  could  invert  the  order  of  things,  then  immersion 
might  serve  their  purpose ;  but  as  it  now  is,  immersion 
is  'the  Popish'  word,  to  which  the  Baptists  have  resort- 
ed to  gain  their  point,  and  our  word,  baptize,  is  the 
true  Scripture  w^ord  used  by  Christ;  for  all  know  that 
immerse  is  only  a  Latin  w^ord,  put  into  English,  and 
that  baptize  is  the  Scripture  Greek  w  ord,  put  into  Eng- 
lish.    We  contend  for  the    Scripture  word,   and  the 


171 

Baptists  for  the  Latin  Popish  word,  immersion,  whicii 
is  as  unknown  in  the  Greek,  as  in  our  English  Bible. 
Is  it  not  also  a  little  Unfortunate,  that  those  who  hate 
words  transfered,  and  call  it  'Popish,'  should  assume 
the  transfered  name,  'Baptists?'  Do  they  not  know, 
that  the  word  Baptist  is  as  really  and  as  much  a  trans- 
fer, as  the  word  baptize  ?  The  whole  Baptist  denomi- 
nation, then,  is  no  more  nor  less  than  'a  Popish  artifice 
of  transfer,'  according  to  their  own  reasoning.  Do 
they  not  know,  that  one  of  the  positive  institutions  of 
God's  house  is  called  baptism,  and  will  they  nickname 
this  solemn  and  important  ordinance,  'a  Popish  artifice?' 
Christ  never  called  it  immersion,  nor  by  the  Latin  word, 
IMMERGO,  but  always  by  the  Greek  word,  baplizo,  or 
baptisma^  which  is,  in  English,  baptize,  or  baptism.  Yet 
they  call  the  very  language  of  Christ  'a  Popish  artifice.' 
To  get  rid  of  this  artifice  of  Christ,  they  make  new  Bi- 
bles; hear  their  own  reasons  given  for  their  new  Bibles: 
"This  is  the  first  Bible  Society  formed,  under  the  di- 
rection of  the  Baptist  denomination,  with  the  avowed 
intention  of  giving  to  the  whole  world  a  literal  trans- 
lation of  the  Word  of  God."  First  Report,  p.  21.  The 
world,  then,  has  never  had  a  faithful  translation  before, 
I  suppose. 

Again — "The  Board  of  Managers  are  satisfied,  that 
the  providence  of  God  has  made  it  the  duty  of  Baptists 
to  give  to  the  whole  world  a  faithful  translation  of  the 
whole  Bible." — Ibid,  page  51. 

Really,  God  has  given  these  brethren  a  responsible 
work  to  do.  The  assumption  here  exceeds  any  thing 
of  the  kind  I  ever  read — it  takes  for  granted  these  two 
ideas : — 


1.  That  the  Baptists  are  the  only  people  "in  the  world 
>vlio  arc  right,  and  that  God  calls  them  to  set  all  others 
right — that  their  peculiar  notions  shall,  certainly  and 
tinally,  prevail. 

2.  Tliat  they  ate  the  only  people  in  the  world,  learn- 
ed and  faithful  enough  to  make  a  true  and  literal  trans- 
lation of  the  Bihle  for  all  nations  to  read;  and  that 
we  have  no  true  and  faithful  version  now  on  the  earth 
but  theirs. 

But  hear  Mr.  Maclay,  in  the  same  report,  page  73, 
lie  says  of  their  Society: — 'Its  object  is  to  give  faithful 
translations  of  the  Bible  to  tlie  nations  of  the  earth, 
^vithout  any  human  addition,  diminution,  or  conceal- 
ment, which  cannot  be  affirmed  of  any  other  Bible 
Society  in  the  world:  for  it  would  seem  that  they  are 
more  zealous  to  conceal  from  the  nations  the  real  meaijr 
ing  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  than  to  give  the  un- 
adultenited  Bihle  of  God  to  men."  This  is  the  spirit 
of  their  reports  and  speeches,  generally,  on  this  subject. 
I  will  notice  but  one  more  point  to  show  their  spiiit. 

The  managers  of  this  new  Society  represent  God  as 
cutting  off  three  good  Missionaries,  by  a  sort  of  judg- 
ment, for  opposing  their  immer-sion  Bible,  and  insinuate 
that  he  will  treat  all  others  in  the  same  way  wlio  op- 
pose them.  They  say — "Some  years  since,  say  tlic 
Baptist  Missionaries  in  Bengal,  three  Pcsdobaptist 
brethren  unknown  to  us,  though  on  the  most  friendly 
terms  with  us,  wrote  to  the  Bible  Society  in  England., 
requesting  them  not  to  give  assistance  to  any  Indian 
version,  in  which  the  word  haptizo  was  translated  to 
i^nmerse.  None  oe  these  3ien  lived  to  see  the  re- 
ply TO  THEIR  APPLiCATiox.  Whcu  the  refusal  reached 


Calcutta,  they  had  all  been  called  to  render  an  account 
of  their  stewardship  to  God." — Page  50.  Solemn  warn- 
ing indeed.  God  treated  these  men  like  Korah  and 
his  company,  for  telling  the  truth  and  opposing  such 
error.  But  I  must  leave  off  such  quotations — they  are 
too  bad  to  be  cited.. 

The  Baptists  attempt  to  justify  their  conduct  in  thi.^ 
matter  by  saying,  the  Bible  Society  permitted  versions 
of  the  Bible  to  be  circulated,  in  which  haptizo  was  ren- 
dered to  WET,  or  SPRINKLE.  But  tliis  is  not  correct,  as 
has  been  fully  shown  by  the  Seci'etary  of  the  A.  B.. 
Society,  who  says:  "A  small  edition  of  a  Seneca  Gos- 
ple  was  once  published,  where  haptizo  was  translated 
to  wet  or  sprinkle.  But  this  was-  wholly  unknown  to 
the  Board,  until  years  after  the  work  was  issued;  and 
when  known,  was  disapproved  of  by  every  member." 
But  do  not  the  Baptists  know  how  many  thousands  of 
dollars  were  bestowed  to  assist  in  printing  and  distri- 
buting a  Burmese  Baptist  version,,  while  its  character 
was  wholly  unknown  to  the  Board?  They  have  cer- 
tainly had  their  share  of  such  indulgences.  I  hope  all 
who  wish  to  see  the  full  account  of  this  strange  and 
unparalleled  phagnomenon  of  sectarianism  will  read  tlie 
reports  cited.  And  I  refer,,  likewise,,  for  able  and  cor- 
rect reviews  of  their  proceedings,  to  the  'Methodist 
Quarterly  Review,  for  October,  1841,'  and  the  'Prince- 
ton Review,  or  Biblical  Repertory,  for  July,  1838.' 

In  each  of  these  Journals  this  whole  matter  is  justly 
condemned.  I  am  only  astonished,  that  the  Christian 
world  have  not  more  generally  and  extensively  frowned 
upon  it^ 

This,  I  say,  is  yielding  to  us  the  English  Bibley  as. 


174 

fully  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  and  against  immersion — is 
virtually  giving  up  the  whole  controversy — and  is  as 
much  as  saying,  we  cannot  succeed  in  the  argument, 
but  we  can  change  the  Bible,  and  gull  the  ignorant. 
But  in  vain  is  the  net  spread  in  the  sight  of  any  bird. 
All  people  will  see  you  at  it — even  the  heathen  will 
scorn  it. 

I  shall  conclude  this  Letter  by  showing,  very  brief- 
ly, the  excellency  of  our  English  version  of  the  Bible. 
And  I  shall  not  quote  a  single  Presbyterian  author,  as 
they  all  think  our  Bible  so  abundantly  full  of  true 
Presbyterianism  as  to  take  it  'as  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.'  Nor  shall  we  cite  any  Bap- 
tists, because  they  have  also  yielded  this  point  to  us 
fully,  in  leaving  our  Bible  for  a  new  one,  as  Mr.  Camp- 
bell has  done. 

Dr.  Adam  Clark,  the  celebrated  Methodist  Com- 
mentator, says  of  it: — "Those,  who  have  compared 
most  of  the  European  translations  with  the  onginal, 
have  not  scrupled  to  say,  that  the  English  translation 
of  the  Bible,  made  under  King  James  the  First,  is  the 
most  accurate  and  faithful  of  the  whole.  Nor  is  this  its 
only  praise — the  translators  have  seized  the  very  spirit 
and  soul  of  the  original,  and  expressed  this  almost  eve- 
ry where,  with  pathos  and  energy.  Besides,  our  trans- 
lators have  not  only  made  a  standard  translation,  but 
they  have  made  their  translation  the  standard  of  our 
language;  the  English  tongue,  in  their  day,  was  not 
equal  to  such  a  work,  but  God  enabled  them  to  stand, 
as  upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  crane  up  their  country's 
language  to  the  dignity  of  the  originals;  so  that,  after 
tlie  lapse  of  two  hundred  years,  the  English  Bible  is^. 


175 

with  very  few  exceptions,  the  standard  of  the  purity 
and  excellence  of  the  English  tongue.  The  original, 
from  which  it  was  taken,  is  alone  superior  to  the  Bible 
translated  by  the  authority  of  King  James," — Volume 
1,  page  31. 

Dr.  Geddes  says: — "The  highest  eulogiums  have 
been  made  on  the  translation  of  James  the  First,  both 
by  our  own  writers  and  by  foreigners.  And  indeed,  if 
accuracy,  fidelity,  and  the  strictest  attention  to  the  let- 
ter of  the  text,  be  supposed  to  constitute  the  qualities 
of  an  excellent  version,  this,  of  all  versions,  must  in 
general  be  accounted  the  most  excellent.  Every  sen- 
tence— every  word — every  syllable — every  letter  and 
point — seem  to  have  been  weighed  with  the  utmost 
exactitude,  and  expressed,  either  in  the  text,  or  mar- 
gin, with  the  greatest  precision.  Pagninus,  himself,  is 
hardly  more  literal;  and  it  was  well  remarked  by  Rob- 
ertson, above  a  hundred  years  ago,  that  it  may  serve 
for  a  Lexicon  of  the  Hebrew  language,  as  well  as  for 
a  translation." — Prosp.,  page  92. 

Contrast  this  language  of  one  of  the  most  learned 
men  of  the  M^orld  with  the  following  sentence  from 
Mr.  Cone,  the  President  of  the  New  Baptist  Bible  So- 
ciety:— "Who  knows,  that  the  forty-nine  translators 
were  such  very  learned  men?  [All,  who  know  any 
thing  of  them,  do.]  Where  are  their  learned  works? 
[And  where  are  yours  to  excel  them?]  Cannot  breth- 
ren allow  the  possibility  of  forty-nine  Baptists  meeting 
together,  and  making  an  amendment  in  the  version  of 
the  Scriptures."  We  say,  emphatically,  no.  Nor  49 
Presbyterians  either,  to  substitute  a  Latin  uninspired 
word,  instead  of  an  inspired  Greek  one,  so  well  put  in- 


176 

to  English  as  our  good  old  expressive,  appropriate,  sa- 
cred word,  baptize.  I  might  cite  a  volume  of  eulogies 
on  our  English  version-  Let  any,  who  wisli  more, 
look  into. Home,  volimie  2,  page  254 — 8,  and  they  will 
fmd,  agreeing  with  the  above,  John  Selden,  Bishop 
Watson,  Bishop  Lowth,  Middlcton,  Horsley,  Whita- 
ker,  Drs.  Doddridge,  Taylor  of  Norwich,  Beattie,  and 
a-  multitude  of  others.  The  English  version,  then,,  is 
the  best  in  tiie  world.  But  the  immersionists  give  it  up 
as  wholly  in  favor  of  sprinkling.  Therefore,  this,  the 
best  version — yea,  the  Bible — is  wholly  in  favour  of 
sprinkling,  and  against  iramei"sion.  And  this  settleS- 
the  matter. 


LETTER   XXIV. 

THE    HISTORY    OF    IMMERSION. 

The  history  of  Immersion,  as  given  bj  Mr.  Campbell, 
we  shall  here  notice.  He  saysy  in  ^Christianity  Re- 
stored,' page  225: — 

"Having  closely  and  repeatedly  examined  the  epistles 
of  Clement;  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians;  of  Ignatius 
to  the  Ephesians;  that  to  the  Magnesians;  that  to  the 
Trallians,  the  Romans,  the  Philadelphians,  the  Smyr- 
nians,  and  the  Epistle  to  Polycarp,  together  witli 
the  Catholic  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  genuine 
works  of  Ilermas,  I  can  affirm  that  the  following  ex- 
tracts (only  two)  are  the  only  passages^  in  all  these  zvri- 
tings^  that  speak  of  Immersion,  The  former  (Clement) 
gives  no  testimony  on  the  subject — nor  does  Ignatius, 
nor  Polycarp — but  Hermas,  who  wrote  about  the  end 
of  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  second  century,  speak- 
ing of  a  tower  built  upon  water,  by  which  he  signifies 
the  building  of  Christ's  church,  (the  whole  is  but  a  fig- 
ure of  taking  stones  from  the  water  to  build  with,)  thus 
writes: — 'Hear,  therefore,  why  the  tower  is  built  upon 
the  waters — because  your  life  is  saved,  and  shall  be 
saved,  by  water.'  In  answer  to  the  question,  'why  did 
the  stones  come  up  into  the  tower  out  of  the  deep?'  he 
says,  'it  was  necessary  for  them  to  come  up  by  (or 
through)  water,  that  they  might  be  at  rest,  for  they 
could  not  otherwise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God;  for 
before  any  one  receives  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God, 
he  is  hable  to  death;  but  when  he  receives  the  seal,  he 
is  deHvered  from  death,  and  assigned  to  hfc:  now  that 

12 


178 

seal  is  7t:ater,  to  which  persons  go,  but  from  which  they 
come  assigned  to  life;  for  which  reason,  to  these  also 
was  the  seal  preached,  and  they  made  use  of  it,  that 
they  might  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.' — Book  of 
Similitudes,  ch.  16."     Now  notice: — 

1.  He  calls  baptism  Hhe  seal  of  the  Lord:'  'That  seal 
is  water,"  and  is  placed,  of  course,  upon  the  Forehead, 

2.  This  Book  was  written  before  John  wrote  his 
Gospel,  and  while  he  yet  lived;  so  that  we  follow  Her- 
mas  and  John  too  in  sealing  the  Forehead  with  baptism. 
But  Mr.  C.  finds  no   immersion  here,  not  even  baptizo. 

The  other  passage  to  which  Mr.  Campbell  refers,  is 
from  Barnabas,  ch.  11,  who  says: — 

"Let  us  inquire  whether  the  Lord  took  care  to  mani- 
fest anything  before  hand,  concerning  water  and  the 
cross.  Now  for  the  former  of  these,  it  is  written  to  the 
people  of  Israel,  how  they  shall  not  receive  that  Bap- 
tism that  brings  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  shall  institute 
another  to  themselves  that  cannot.  For  thus  saith  the 
Prophet — 'Be  astonished,  O  Heavens,  and  let  the  earth 
tremble  at  it,  because  this  people  have  done  two  great 
and  wicked  things.  They  have  left  me,  the  fountain 
of  living  waters,  and  have  digged  for  themselves  broken 
cisterns  that  can  hold  no  water.  Is  my  holy  mountain, 
Zion,  a  desolate  wilderness?  For  she  shall  be  as  a 
young  bird,  when  its  nest  is  taken  away.'  Consider 
how  he  hath  joined  both  the  cross  and  water  together. 
For  this  he  saith,  'Blessed  are  they,  who,  putting  their 
trust  in  the  cross,  descend  into  [to]  the  water,  for  they 
shall  have  their  reward  in  due  time;'  then  saith  he,  'I 
will  give  it  them.'  But  as  concerning  the  present  time, 
he  saith  'their  leaves  shall  not  fall,'  meaning  thereby, 


179 

that  every  word  that  shall  go  out  of  your  mouth,  shall, 
through  faith  and  charity,  be  to  the  conversion  and  hope 
of  many.  In  like  manner  does  another  Prophet  speak, 
'and  the  land  of  Jacob  was  the  praise  of  all  the  earth,' 
magnifying  thereby  the  vessels  of  the  Spirit.  And 
what  follows?  'And  there  was  a  river  running  on  the 
right  hand,  and  beautiful  trees  grew  up  by  it,  and  he 
that  shall  eat  of  them  shall  live  forever.'  "  The  significa- 
tion is  this;  that  we  go  down  into  [to]  the  water  full 
of  sins  and  pollutions,  but  come  up  again,  bringing  forth 
fruit,  having  in  our  hearts  the  fear  and  hope  which  are 
in  Jesus,  by  the  Spirit;  and-vvliosoever  shall  eat  of  them, 
shall  live  forever." 

We  have  given  these  two  long  extracts  that  all  may 
see  the  whole  evidence  that  Mr.  C.  gives,  or  says  can 
be  found,  for  immersion  from  all  the  Apostolic  Fathers.' 
Hear  his  own  words:  'Having  closely  and  repeatedly 
examined  the  Epistles  (of  all  the  Fathers,)  I  can  affirm 
that  the  preceding  extracts  are  the  only  passages  in  all 
those  writings  that  speak  of  immersion.'  But  do  these 
say  a  word  about  immersion?  Neither  the  word  nor 
the  idea  can  be  found  in  either  of  them.  The  word 
haptizo  is  not  even  used  in  any  of  its  forms,  nor  can  the 
highly  figurative  language  of  Hermas  and  Barnabas  be 
CERTAINLY  made  to  mean,  or  refer  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism at  all.  Yet  this  is  all  the  evidence,  for  150  years 
after  Christ,  in  favour  of  immersion.  Then  it  could 
not  have  existed. 

Mr.  Campbell  on  the  same  page  says :  "Having  heard 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,  as  they  are  called,  depose  to  the 
views  of  the  Apostles  down  to  A.  D.  140,  I  will  sumr; 
mon  a  very    learned    Paedobaptist   antiquarian,    [Dr. 


180 

Wall]  who  can  bring  forward  every  writer  and  Father 
down  to  the  fifth  century."  He  then  cites  from  Wall, 
to  prove  his  notion  of  baptismal  regExXeration,  nearly 
all  the  passages  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  that  I  have 
quoted  in  the  foregoing  Letters;  and,  in  his  eilbrts  to 
prove  his  water  regeneration,  has  fully  admitted  all  of 
Wall's  quotations,  and  what  is  most  remarkable,  prov- 
en his  position  from  the  very  passages  of  the  Fathers 
that  prove  Infant  Baptism:  so  that  I  hope  all  his  follow- 
ers will  believe  my  quotations  from  the  Fathei-s,  as  Mr. 
Campbell  has  deckred  them  to  be  true.  For  instance ; 
he  quotes  the  same  passages  I  do  from  Cyprian,  Ori- 
rren,  Gregory,  Basil,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom  and  Augus- 
tine. Now  turn  back  to  my  quotations,  which  should 
have  all  the  force  of  Mr.  Campbell's  authority. 

Then  we  can  fmd  but  two-  passages  in  favour  of  im- 
mersion, (and  they  say  not  a  word  of  it,)  m  all' the  Fa- 
thers;  so  that  neither  Polycarp,  nor  Ignatius,  nor  Cle- 
ment, the  chief  Fathers,  say  a  word  about  it.  So  far. 
then,  the  matter  is  clear, — there  was  no  immersion  for 
140  years  after  Christ.  In  the  year  140,  Justin  Mar- 
tvr  wrote  his  first  apology  to  Antonius  Pius,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  baptism  thus: — ^I  will  now  declare  to  }  ou 
also,  after  what  manner  we,  being  made  new  in  Christ 
for  baptized,]  have  dedicated  ourselves  to.  God,  lest,  if 
I  should  leave  out  that,  I  might  seem  to  deal  unfairly 
in  my  apology.  They  who  arc  persuaded  and  do  be- 
lieve that  these  things  which  are  taught  us  arc  true, 
and  do  promise  to  live  according  to  them,  are  directed 
first  to  pray,  and  ask  of  God,  with  fasting,  the  forgive- 
ness of  their  former  sins,  and  we  also  pray  and  fast  to- 
gether with  thena.     Then  we  bring  them  to  some  place 


181 

*vhcrc  there  is  water,  and  thej  are  regenerated  after 
the  same  way  of  regeneration,  by  which  we  were  re- 
generated, ybr  they  are  zvashed  zcith  watery  (c7i  toucJatitoie 
ioiitron  poiountai^m  the  name' of  God,  the  F^.thcr  and 
liOrd  of  all  thing*,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  Christ  says,  unless  ye  be  re- 
generated ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom«of  Heaven; 
and  every  one  knows  it  is  impossible  for  those  that  are 
once  generated  or  born  to  enter  again  into  their  moth- 
ers womb.  It  was  foretold  by  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  as 
I  said,  by  what  means  they  who  rcpcntof  tlieir  sins 
might  escape  them,  and  was  written  in  these  words: 
*wash  you,  make  you  clean,  put  away  your  ovik' 

1.  Thisis  the  most  ancient  account  of  baptizing,  next 
to  the  Scriptures,  we  have  on  record,  and  sliows  most 
clearly  that  Justin  calls  baptism  just  what  we  do,  'a 
washing  zcith  rvater  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity:''  and  the 
^WASHING,'  notice,  was  made  upon  thcni-^iwt  they  in  the 
water, 

2.  He  explains  John  3:  5,  to  mean  baptism,  called 
by  Isaiah,  1 :  16,  a  'washing;'  so  Hhe  washing  of  regen- 
eration,' Tit.  3:  5,  is  Baptism.  This  most  ancient  doc- 
ument should  be  well  remembered. 

Irenius,  the  next  Father,  speaks  of  Infant  Baptism, 
but  says  nothing  of  the  mode  at  all:  nor  does  Clement 
of  Alexandria.  So  we  come  on  dow^n  to  the  year  200c 
when  we  find  Tertullian,  the  first  man  who  speaks  of 
the  practice  of  immersion,  which  he  declares  'not  to  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures,'  but  'uj;o:i  tradition.'  I  shall 
cite  the  whole  passage  from  Wall,  part  2,  chapter  9. 
Tertullian,  in  a  dispute  with  Praxias,  ch.  26,  says : — "Not 
unto  one  person,  for  we  are  not  plunged  once,  but  three 


182 

times:  once  at  the  naming  of  each  name."  Then  the 
fiftieth  of  the  ancient  Canons  orders,  that  ^any  Bishop 
or  Presbyter^  that  does  not  use  the  Trine  immersion  in 
baptism^  be  deposed^*  So  that  the  first  cases  of  immer- 
sion on  record  are  all  of  the  trine  ijimersion.  But 
now,  let  Tertullian  tell  where  this  immersion  came 
from,  and  on  what  it  is  founded: — "Let  us  try  then, 
whether  no  tradition  ought  to  be  allowed,  that  is  not 
written.  Now,  to  begin  with  baptism;  when  we  come 
to  the  water,  we  do  there,  under  the  hand  of  the  Pas- 
tor, make  a  full  confession  that  we  renounce  the  devil, 
and  his  pomp,  and  his  angels.  Then  we  are  three  times 
plunged  into  the  water,  and  we  answer  some  few  words 
more  than  those  which  our  Saviour  in  the  Gospel  has 
enjoined.  When  we  are  taken  up  out  of  the  water, 
we  taste  a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey.  And  from  that 
day,  we  abstain  a  whole  week  from  batliing  ourselves, 
w^hich  otherwise  we  use  every  day.  And  w^hatever 
business  we  have,  we  make  upon  our  foreheads  the  sign 
of  the  cross.***  If  you  search  into  the  Scriptures  for  any 
command  for  these  and  such  like  usages,  you  shall  find 
7ione»  Tradition  will  be  urged  to  you  as  the  ground  of 
them — custom  as  the  confirmer  of  them — and  our  religion 
teaches  us  to  observe  them,'''' — De  Corona  Militis,  ch.  1 — 3. 
Could  language  declare  more  unequivocally  the  trine 
immersion  of  the  third  century  to  be  founded  on  tradi- 
tion, and  that  there  is  no  command  for  it  in  Scripture  ? 
This  is  the  first  and  only  kind  of  immersion  we  find 
till  1522,  except  that  of  some  heretics  called  Eunomians. 
St.  Hierome,  in  his  Dialogue  Epistle,  Sec.  8,  says  of 
Baptism :  "For  many  other  things  which  are  by  tradi- 
tion observed  in  the  Church,  have  got  authority  as  if 


183 

they  were  written  laws,  as  in  the  font  of  Baptism. — ■- 
Tcr  caput  mergitare,  to  plunge  the  head  three  times 
Under  water*'^  St.  Basil  says  the  same  things^  and  so 
does  the  great  Chrysostora.  Hence,  Dr.  Wall  says: 
'The  way  of  Trine  immersion.^  plunging  the  head  three 
times  under  water,  was  the  general  practice  of  aU  an- 
tiquity,^ after  the  second  century. 

Robinson  confirms  all  this,  p.  466,  quoting  Daille  to 
Bellarmine. — ^"He  proves  by  unquestionable  authority, 
that  trine  immersion^  first  mentioned  in  the  close  of  the  sec- 
ond century^  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  third,  Wcis  the  in- 
variable practice  of  the  Catholic  church,  both  Greek 
and  Roman,  till  about  the  sixth  century ;  that  although 
Gregory  I.  allowed  the  validity  of  single  immersion  in 
the  case  of  the  Spaniards,  yet  the  Romans  practiced 
trine  immersion;  that  a  Synod  of  Constantinople  cen- 
sured the  Eunomians  for  practicing  single  immersion  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  and  that  trine  immersion  continued 
to  be  universally  practiced  till  the  fifteenth  century." 

To  show  you  that  the  immersion  of  the  present  day 
is  quite  a  different  thing  from  what  you  find  in  the  Fa- 
thers, look  at  the  case  of  tliose  people  who  were  con- 
dem.ned  for  immersing  but  once.  I  will  cite  the  case, 
though  some  may  blame  me  for  so  doing.  Wall,  ch. 
9,  sec.  4,  says: — "The  Eunomians  had  the  oddest  way 
of  baptizing  that  ever  was  heard  of.  For  besides  that 
they  differed  from  all  other  Christians  in  the  words 
used  at  baptism,  some  baptizing  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
&c.  &c.  &c.,  their  mode  of  baptizing  was  to  plunge 
the  person  but  once  into  the  water;  and  that  not  all  his  body 
neither.  For  they  said,  all  the  parts  of  the  body  below 
the  waist  are  abominable,  and  must  not  touch  the  wa- 


184 

ter;  so  they  used  to  uncover  the  person  to  the  waist, 
and  then  holding  his  heels  up,  and  his  head  downward, 
they  dipped  him  in  the  font  as  far  as  the  waist.  They 
continued  this  custom  till  a  ridiculous  accident  happen- 
ed ;  a  heavy,  unwieldly  man  coming  to  be  baptized,  they 
that  were  to  hold  him  with  his  head  down  let  him  fall, 
and  he  broke  his  head  against  the  bottom  of  the  font. 
To  prevent  which  mischance  for  the  future,  they  in- 
vented another  way,"  &c. — Epiphanius,  ch.  76 — The- 
odoret,  ch.  4. 

This  certainly  was  an  odd  way  of  baptising,  but  it 
v,-as  condemned  because  it  was  but  single  immersion. 
Surely  those  who  practice  single  immersion  in  these 
davs  will  not  plead  this  example.  Then  they  must  go 
for  the  TRINE  immersion,  for  that  did  prevail  whereveiv 
and  whenever  sprinkling  or  pouring  was  not  used. 

Here  we  should  remark  that  we  find  from  this  time 
on,  for  several  hundred  years,  immersion  often  spoken 
of  as  in  practice,  but  it  was  always  trine  or  three  times 
given.  But  it  was  never  considered  essential  to  bap- 
tism by  any  writer,  or  sect,or  church,  till  after  Luther's 
time,  when  Munzer  and  Storch  made  it  so  in  15"22. 

To  show  this  matter  in  a  full  and  clear  light,  read 
what  Cyprian  says  on  this  point,  in  the  year  255. — 
Magnus  writes  to  him  to  know  whether  persons  bap- 
tized in  bed  by  .sprinkling,  were  properly  baptized,  or 
whether  they  should  be  baptized  over  again.  Cyprian 
answers,  most  certainly  they  are  not  to  be  re-baptized, 
])ecause  their  baptism  is  Scriptural,  and  Ezekiel  de- 
clares it  so. — "You  inquire,  also,  dear  son,  what  I  think 
of  such  as  obtain  the  grace  (of  baptism)  in  time  of  their 
sickness  and  infirmity;  whether  they  are  to  be  account- 


VS5 

ed  lawful  Christians,  because  they  are  not  washed  all 
over  with  the  water  of  salvation,  but  have  only  some 
of  it  POURED  UPON  THEM.  [Gnosticism  had  then  entejcd. 
and  trine  immersion  was  very  common,  many  really  be- 
lieving  that  unless  a  person  was  immersed  three  times\ 
he  could  not  be  saved.]  In  which  matter,  I  use  so 
much  modesty  and  humility  as  not  [like  maiiy  now-a- 
days]  to  .prescribe  so  positively,  but  that  every  one 
should  have  the  freedom  of  his  own  thouglit,  and  do  ns 
he  thinks  best.  I  do,  according  t:0  the  best  of  my 
mean  capacity,  judge  thus,  tliat  the  divine  favors  are 
not  MAIMED  or  WEAKENED,  SO  as  that  any  thing  less  than 
the  whole  of  them  is  conveyed,  where  the  benefit  ei 
them  is  received  with  a  full  and  complete  faith,  both  oi 
the  giver  and  receiver.  For,  the  contagion  of  sin  is 
n»ot,in  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  washed  off  by  the  same 
measure  that  the  dirt  of  the  skin  and  of  the  body  is 
washed  off  in  an  ordinary  and  secular  bath,  [as  some 
think,]  so  as  that  there  should  be  any  necessity  of  soaj) 
a^id  other  helps,  and  a  large  fish  pond  or  pool,  by  which 
the  body  is  washed.  It  is  in  another  way,  that  the 
breast  of  a  believer  is  washed  (or  baptized) — after  an- 
other fashion,  that  the  mind  of  a  man  is,  by  faith, 
cleansed.  If  any  one  think  they  obtain  no  benefit,  as 
having  only  a  sprinkling  of  the  water  of  baptism,  do  not 
let  them  mistake  so  far,  as  that  if  the  parties  should  re- 
cover of  their  sickness,  they  should  be  baptized  again. 
And  if  they  must  not  be  baptized  again,  that  they  have 
already  been  sanctified  with  the  baptism  of  the  Cliurch, 
[to-wit:  SPRINKLING,  hcrc  called  'the  baptism  of  the 
Church,']  why  should  they  have  cause  of  scandal  given 
them  concerning  their  religion,  and  the  baptism  (par- 


186 

don)  of  the  Lord?  What!  shall  we  think  they  have 
granted  to  them  the  grace  of  our  Lord,  hut  in  a  weak- 
er or  less  measure  of  the  Divine  and  Holy  Spirit,  so  as  to 
be  accounted  Christians,  hut  yet  not  in  an  equal  state 
with  others?  No;  the  holy  Spirit  is  not  given  hy  sev- 
eral measures,  [so  of  baptism,]  but  is  wholly  poured  on 
them  that  beheve*  In  the  sacrament  of  salvation,  when 
necessity  compels,  the  shortest  ways  of  transacting 
divine  matters  do,  by  God^s  gracious  dispensation, 
confer  the  whole  benefit.  And  no  man  need,  there- 
fore, think  otherwise,  because  these  sick  people,  when 
they  received  the  baptism  (grace)  of  our  Lord,  have 
nothing  but  an  affusion  or  sprinkling;  for  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  by  the  Prophet  Ezekiel,  38:  25,  says:  'Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean.'  "—Epistle  69.  The  same  is  true  of  Origen  and 
many  others  of  those  times.  See  Letter  XIV  for  a  full 
catalogue  of  the  Fathers. 

I  say  again,  and  wish  it  ever  remembered,  that  no 
writer,  till  after  1522,  makes  even  trine  immersion  es- 
sential to  baptism. 

One  more  fact  heret  The  Greek  church,  it  is  said, 
is  one  of  the  oldest,  and  they  have  ever  immersed,  and 
do  so  now — ^but  is  it  not  always  three  times  ?  Take  a 
fact  from  Robinson,  p.  454 :  He  says  they  cut  a  hole  or 
orifice  in  the  ice,  and  dip  the  infants  under;  then,  quo- 
ting Richardson,  adds,  "All  infants,  who  are  baptized 
with  the  water  of  the  sacred  orifice,  are  supposed  to 
derive  from  it  the  most  peculiar  advantages.  Parents 
are,  therefore,  very  eager,  even  at  the  hazard  of  their 
children's  lives,  to  embrace  this  blessed  opportunity.  I 
have  heard  that  a  Priest,  in  immersing  a  child,  let  it 


187 

fall  into  the  water — [under  the  ice.]  The  child  was 
drowned;  but  the  holy  nmn  suffered  no  consternation, 
but  with  the  utmost  composure  said,  'Give  me  anotheh, 
for  the  Lord  has  taken  this  unto  himself.'  The  Em- 
press, however,  having  other  use  for  her  subjects,  and 
not  desiring  the  Lord  should  have  any  more,  in  this 
way,  at  least,  gave  orders  that  all  the  children  to  be 
baptized,  in  the  hole  in  the  river,  be  let  down  in  a 
basket."  They,  however,  now  practice  in  the  good 
old  way,  by  sprinkling,  as  was  shown  in  Letter  X. 

ThcDy  we  conclude  that  immersion  was  not  known 
nor  in  practice  for  two  hundred  years  after  Christ. — 
None  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  mention  it — Tertullian 
speaks  of  the  trine  immersion  first  in  the  third  century. 
So,  putting  Campbell,  Justin,  TertulUan,  Cyprian  Ori- 
gen  and  Robinson  together,  the  case  is  made  out  that 
trine  immersion  came  in  about  the  third  century  and 
prevailed,  where  sprinkling  was  not  used,  down  to  the 
Reformation,  but  was  founded  on  tradition  and  unknown 
to  Scripture. 


LETTER  XXV. 

THE    DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  %, 

As  the  adv^ocales  of  Immersion  have  given  up  the 
English  Bible  as  wholl}^  in  our  favor;  and  as  we  have 
shown  in  our  last,  fiom  the  histoiy  of  immersion,  that 
it  is  not  possible  for  them  to  appeal  to  Church  history 
with  success,  we  shall  conclude  these  Letters. 

It  is  surpassingly  strange  to  me,  that  an}'  person  should 
fail  to  understand  the  true  design  of  so  simple  and  sig- 
nificant an  ordinance.  All  denominations,  I  believe, 
agree  in  understanding  the  I^ord's  supper  to  be  a  sym- 
bol or  representation  of  the  death  and  sulFerings  of 
Christ.  And  nearly  all  believe  that  laaptism  is  design- 
ed to  represent  the  cleansing,  purifying  influence  of  the 
spiritual  baptism.  The  one  is  certainly  as  plain  as  the 
other,  and  where  imagination  and  prejudice  have  not 
the  sway,  there  is  nto  more  difficulty  in  the  one  case 
than  the  other.  Some  have  contended  that  baptism 
was  designed  to  represent  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ.  But  on  what  grounds  or  authority,  I  cannot 
possibly  conceive.  Do  they  say  that  Christ  gave  grounds 
for  this  strange  notion?  None,  whatever.  He  says 
nothing  from  which  it  can  even  be  infered,  but  the  very 
reverse.  Do  they  contend  that  John  gave  any  reasons 
to  believe  it  true.?  'They  certain!}^  cannot.  For  John 
most  fully  and  expressly  says,  it  was  a  type  or  sign  of  spir- 
itual baptism: — ^^'I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto 
repentance,  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than 
I — he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  witli 
fire." — Mat.  3: 11.  This  is  what  John  says  of  the  matter- 


180 

But  notice  again:  Our  imniersionists  contend  that 
John''s  baptism  was  Christian  baptism,  and  that  baptism 
was  first  iiistituted  in  the  days  of  John;  of  course,  then, 
Christ  had  not  died,  nor  did  John,  or  even  Peter,  the 
day  before  his  crucifixion,  beheve  that  he  should  die. 
Is  it  possible,  then,  that  John  baptized  to  represent  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  when  he  did  not  be- 
rieve  he  was  going-  to  die,  or  to  be  raised  at  all !  It  is 
unreasonable,  and  is  wholly  an  after-thought.  That 
was  never  in  the  mind  of  man  till  immersion  was  in- 
vented, and  then  this  strange  id'ea  originated  as  a  prop 
to  support  a  mode  of  baptism  not  known  to  the  Scrip- 
tures at  all,  but  foimded  on  tradition.  Then  the  Gos- 
pels declare  water  baptism  to  be  designed  to  point  out 
and  represent  spiritual  baptism.  Now  turn  to  the  "Acts 
of  the  Apostles."  Christ  gave  his  commission.  Mat. 
28:  19;  Mark  16;  and  in  Luke  24,  and  added,  "But 
tarry  ye  in  Jerusalem  till  ye  be  endowed  with  power 
from  on  high.""  Then  in  Acts,  1:  4,  5 — "But  wait  for 
the  promise  of  the  Father,  which  ye  have  heard  of  me; 
for  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be 
])aptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence," 
which  occurred  at  Pentecost,  as  recorded  in  the  next 
chapter.  Here  we  find  the  same  connection  between 
water  and  spiritual  baptism,  and  this  is  kept  up  through- 
out the  book  of  Acts,  as  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  ch.  10, 
and  in  the  case  of  the  twelve  in  chapter  19.  So  that 
we  find  not  a  word  about  baptism  representing  the 
death  and  burial  of  Christ  to  the  end  of  Acts,  but  it  is 
always  designed  to  represent  spiritual  baptism.  Before 
we  come  to  the  Epistles,  notice  two  passages  more  in 
the  Gospels;  the  one.  Matt.  3r  16 — Christ's  b-aptisn??.. 


190 

When  he  was  baptized,  immediately  "the  spirit  descen- 
ded  like  a  Dove"  upon  him.  Was  not  this  designed  to 
show  the  union  of  the  two  baptisms?  Or  was  there  no 
meaning  in  it?  The  other  case  is  in  John  3:  5:  "Ex- 
cept one  be  born  of  the  water  and  of  the  spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Now,  if  the 
water  here  refers  to  baptism,  doubtless  the  spirit  may 
also ;  and  as  all  the  advocates  for  immersion  contend 
that  the  water  here  means  baptism,  why  will  they  not 
admit  the  spiritual  to  be  represented  by  the  water  bap- 
tism? Does  not  the  Saviour  himself  here  unequivocal- 
ly declare  it? 

But  now  turn  to  the  Epistles.  There  are  two  pas- 
sages cited  from  these  to  show  that  baptism  is  design- 
ed to  represent  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ.  The 
one  is  Romans,  6:  2,  3 — the  other.  Col.  2: 11, 12.  Be- 
fore we  examine  these,  let  us  ask,  "Does  God  make 
both  ordinances,  the  supper  and  baptism,  refer  to  or 
represent  the  same  thing?  That  the  supper  refers  to 
the  death  and  sufferings  of  Christ,  all  admit.  And  why 
need  baptism  refer  to  what  is  fully  shown  in  the  supper? 
Is  one  ordinance  of  God  so  insignificant  as  to  need  the 
other  to  help  it  set  forth  the  thing  designed?  The  idea 
is  preposterous.  Again :  is  it  Hkely  that  Paul,  who  was 
baptized  "standing  up"  "in  the  house,"  would  teach 
such  an  idea,  as  that  he  himself  was  not  properly  bap- 
tized? which  he  must  do,  if  he  means  by  the  6th  chap, 
of  Romans  to  teach  that  baptism  represents  the  death 
and  burial  of  Christ?     It  is  too  inconsistent  for  Paul. 

Professor  Stuart,  who  is  the  champion  and  favorite 
with  all  the  advocates  for  immersion  in  this  country, 
and  whom  they  boast  of  'as  the  mos't  learned  Pa:dobap- 


191 

list  in  America,'  says  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans, 
"The  resurrection  thus  spoken  of  is  entirely  a  moral, 
spiritual  one — so  is  the  baptism."  And,  after  a  long 
course  of  reasonings  and  critical  exegesis,  he  says:  "I 
believe  that  the  Apostle  had  in  view  only  a  burying, 
which  is  moral  or  spiritual;  for  the  same  reasons  that 
he  had  a  moral  and  spiritual  (not  a  physical  resurrec- 
tion) in  view  in  the  corresponding  part  of  the  antithe- 
sis. Indeed,  what  but  a  moral  burying  can  be  meant, 
when  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  say,  'We  are  buried  with 
him,  (not  by  baptism  only,  but)  by  baptism  into  his 
death  ?'  I  cannot  see,  therefore,  that  there  is  any  more 
necessary  reference  to  the  modus  of  baptism,  than  there 
is  to  the  modus  of  the  resurrection.  The  one  may  as 
well  be  maintained  as  the  other.  But  my  principal 
difficulty  in  respect  to  the  usual  exegesis  of  sunetaphe- 
men  is,  that  the  image  or  figure  of  immersion  (in)  bap- 
tism, is,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  where  else  in  Scripture 
employed  as  a  symbol  of  burial  in  the  grave.  Nor  can 
I  think,  that  it  is  a  very  natural  symbol  of  burial.  The 
obvious  import  of  washing  with  water,  or  immersing  in 
water,  is,  that  it  is  symbolical  of  purity,  cleansing,  and 
purification.  But  how  will  this  aptly  signify  burying 
in  the  grave,  the  pkice  of  corruption,  loathsomeness 
and  destruction?" — Stuart  on  Romans,  p.  ^25^,  Will 
immersionists  believe  these  words  of  their  own  cham- 
pion? Can  the}^  question  what  Professor  Stuart  says? 
I  might  cite  from  the  most  learned  men  of  all  ages 
sentiments  of  the  same  kind.  No  distinguished  man,  till 
recently,  ever  thought  of  making  water  baptism  repro- 
sent  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ.  The  only  two  pas- 
gages  in  the  Testament,  that  have  words  susceptible  of 


m2 

such  a  distortion,  are  in  Paul's  letter,  neither  of  which 
have  any  more  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  than 
to  the  mode  of  dying,  or  living,  or  talking,  or  planting, 
or  cmcifying,  or  rising.  The  last  three  of  these  tig- 
ures  are  used  by  the  Apostle  in  the  same  illustration. 
Why  not  say,  also,  that  baptism  represents  the  cruci- 
fixion of  Christ?  The  whole  idea  is  too  gross  ever  to 
have  originated  with  Paul.  But  to  settle  the  matter 
jorcver,  Paul  has  told  ut?,  almost  in  so  many  words, 
that  water  baptism  represents  spiritual  cleansing: — 
'■•But  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly." — Titus  3:  5. 
Does  not  Paul  here  place  water  baptism,  and  the 
cleansing  of  the  spirit,  together,  the  one  as  the  type  or 
symbol  of  the  other?  Those  who  say  the  expression, 
"washing  of  regeneration,"  means  baptism,  must  ad- 
mit it.  But  why  need  we  dwell  upon  a  point  so  plain? 
Why  need  we  notice  more  fully  theincongruity  of  bap- 
tism representing  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ?  Per- 
mit me  here  to  suggest  to  the  advocates  of  this  theory, 
an  argument  that  their  particular  friend  and  favorite. 
Professor  Stuart,  gives  in  fuM,  and  ask  them  to  read  it 
carefully.  It  is  this  in  substance — That  all  the  cere- 
monies of  the  old  Jewish  dispensation  were  of  two 
kinds,  or  all  may  be  divided  and  set  down  under  two 
heads,  viz: — 

1.  Those  typical  of  the  atonement: 

2.  And  those  typical  of  purification,  or  cleansing. 
Under  one  or  the  other  of  these,  all  the  rights  and 

ceremonies  of  the  old  Testament  may,  with  the  strict- 
est propriety,  be  classed.     Now  that  the  Lord's  supper 


193 

answers  to  all  of  the  first  class,  or  is  our  symbol  of  his 
atonement,  all  admit;  and  if  our  baptism  does  not  also 
fully  answer  to  all  of  the  second  class,  or  is  not  our 
symbol  of  purification,  or  the  cleansing  influence  of  the 
spirit,  then  will  they  tell  us  what  is?  What  were  all 
tlie  cleansing  ceremonies  of  the  old  Testament  types 
of,  if  not  of  baptism?  Is  there  any  thing  answering  to 
them  under  the  new  dispensation,  if  it  is  not  baptism? 
Paul  settles  this  question: — "Which  stood  in  meats  and 
drinks,  and  divers  washings,  (or  baptisms,  as  in  the 
Greek,)  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until 
the  time  of  reformation." — Heb.  9:  10.  Thus,  he  says 
these  carnal  or  ceremonial  cleansings,  washings  or 
baptisms  of  the  Jews,  were  imposed  un  til  Christ  should 
come  and  bring  in  the  great  things  signified — his  atone- 
ment and  spirit,  signified  by  his  supper  and  baptism. 
That  this  is  the  true  design  of  baptism  is  most  mani- 
fest, therefore,  from  the  language  of  Christ,  of  John, 
of  Paul,  of  the  whole  old  Testament,  as  expounded  in 
the  new  by  inspiration.  Yet  men  will  gravely  speak  of 
baptism,  by  immersion,  as  designed  to  represent  the 
death  and  burial  of  Christ,  when  immersion  is  not  in 
the  Bible,  and  the  two  passages  refered  to  are  but 
mere  figures  of  spiritual,  not  physical  matters  at  all. 
Water  is  the  Bible  emblem  of  purity,  not  the  grave; 
sprinkling  is  the  mode  of  purification,  not  dipping;  the 
water  baptism  is  the  beautiful  emblem  of  spiritual 
baptism. 


TII£   END. 
13 


ERRATA. 

Several  typographical  errors  escaped  correction  in  the  'proofs'  of  this 
folume,  of  which  the  following  are  the  most  important.  Some  other 
joinor  ones,  including  a  few  quotation  marks  incorrectly  placed  or  omit- 
ted, mistakes  in  punctuation,  &c.,  none  of  which,  it  is  believed,  mate- 
Tralif  affect  the  sense,  are  passed  over: 

Page  31,  line  9,  read  "your"  instead  of  "you." 

Page  34,  line  10,  read  ^'Sanrtification''''  instead  of  ^^justification." 

Page  45,  line  3,  read  "are"  instead  of  "is." 

Page  70,  line  9,  read  Brerewood"  instead  of  "Brewood." 

Page  80,  line  9th  from  bottom,  read  "is"  instead  of  "are." 

Page  86,  line  3,  read  "23"  instead  of  "25." 

Page  95,  top  line,  read  "Arrian"  instead  of  "Aerian." 

Page  95,  bottom  line,  read  "Buck"  instead  of  "Busk." 

Page  104,  read  '■^loutron''^  instead  of  ^'"loutio"  and  '■^loution.''^ 

Page  104,  bottom  line,  read  "Apology"  instead  of  "Apologue." 

Page  110,  line  19,  read  "Aurelius"  instead  of  "Auselius." 

Page  112,  line  4th  from  bottom,  read  "or"  for  "of." 


[copy-right  secured.] 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PART  FIRST. 

THE   SUBJECTS   OP    BAPTISM. 

FACE 

LiTTEE  I.     The  question  stated— Commission— Jewish 

Household  Baptism -     -     - 

Letter  II.     The  Apostles  practiced  Household  Baptism 

—Christ  recognized  it     -     -     -     - ^^' 

Letter  III.    Infant  Baptism  taught  in  the  Epistles,  as 

explained  by  the  Fathers -     ^     2i 

Letter  IV.    The  two  Objections  to  Infant  Baptism  fully 

answered,  in  contrast  with  two  sound  Arguments 

in  favour  of  it 

Letter  V.    History  of  Infant  Baptism  from  St.  John  to 

Origen,  A.  D.210 ..-----     38 

Letter  VI.     The  first  council  on  Infant  Baptism  under 

Cyprian,  A.  D.  253 ^-^ 

Letter  VII.    History  of  Infant  Baptism  from  Cypnan  to 

Augustine,  A.  D.  500 ^ 

Letter  VIII.    History  of  Infant  Baptism  from  Augustine 

to  the  rise  of  Anabaptism,  1522 ^^ 

Letter  IX.    Infant  Baptism  the  only  true  Baptism-ail 

churches  dependent  upon  it  for  the  validity  of  their 
Baptism— Munzer,  Blount,  Roger  Williams    .     -     -     tJ4 
Letter  X.  All  churches  in   Europe,  Asia,  Africa  and 
America,  since  the  rise  of  the   Anabaptists,  do  now 
practice  Infant  Baptism,  save  the  Baptiets   -    -    -     -     6;} 


PART  SECOND. 

THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Letter  XL  The  question  stated—King  James'  version 
— Baptize  not  a  word  of  mode     -----..     go 

Letter  XIL     The  New  Testament  explains  all  the  Old 
Testament  pouring  and  sprinkling  to  be  Baptism,  and 
thus  settles  the  case;  Bapto   noticed— its  origin     -     -     91 
Letter  XIIL     Etymology  of  Baptizo,  and   use  of  the 
word  in  the  Bible  and  classics 97 

Letter  XIV.  History  of  the  Mode  of  Baptism  from 
John  to  the  twelfth  century     -     -     . 104 

Letter  XV.  History  of  Baptism  from  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury to  the  Reformation  -     - 112 

Letter  XVI.  Each  passage  on  Baptism  in  the  New 
Testament  taken  up  in  order    ------_.  120 

Letter  XVII.  Apostolic  Baptism  in  the  Acts— all  by 
sprinkling,  and  all  in  houses,  but  one  in  the  desert     -  127 

Letter  XVIII.  The  Mode  of  Baptism  in  the  Epistles 
shown  to  be  sprinkling 134 

Letter  XIX.  The  Mennonites,  the  first  Baptists,  have 
given  up  immersion  for  pouring;  ancient  immersions, 
all  naked  and  given  three  times,  founded  on  Tradition  141 

Letter  XX.  The  difference  between  the  immersion  of 
the  Fathers  and  that  of  the  present  age  shown     -     -  148 

Letter  XXI.  Immersion  has  inverted,  and  fully  de- 
stroyed the  Gospel  in  past  ages,  and  the  tendency 
now  is  to  the  same  superstitious  regard  for  it  -     -     -  154 

Letter  XXII.  Baptism  in  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
and  from  the  time  of  Henry  VIII  to  Elizabeth     -     -  160 

Letter  XXIII.  The  question  fully  yielded  to  us,  by 
immersionists  giving  up  the  English  Bible  for  new 
versions jgg 

Letter  XXIV.    The  History  of  Immersion   -    ...  177 

Letter  XXV.    Tho  Design  of  Baptism 188 


nnceton  Theological  SertKnary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01021   3553 


y^^" 

-T  /' 


r^^"'"*  X.it^ 


i  >^  "a 


